1.0 Meaning of Affirmative Action Policies and Programs
Affirmative action refers to programs and policies that seek to seek to redress injustices that minority groups have suffered in the past (Ginsberg et al. 190). For example, it involves policies that aim to promote learners from the disadvantaged group when it comes to the process of admission in colleges and university.\u00a0 It can also mean, policies that uplift how those from underrepresented are viewed when it comes to employment. Traditionally, these policies primarily ought to equalize opportunities by alleviating discriminatory barriers faced by disadvantaged groups in the past. However, the doctrine has evolved to focus on compensatory actions that aim to alleviate the consequences of past discrimination and foster greater diversity (Ginsberg et al. 191).
Affirmative action policies and programs are often controversial because of difficulties faced in determining the most appropriate level of review in affirmative action cases (Ginsberg et al. 189). Ginsberg et al. illuminate this controversy by asking the question \u201cOn whom should the burden of proof be placed: the plaintiff, to show that discrimination has not occurred, or the defendant, to show that discrimination has occurred?\u201d (189). Another reason for this controversy is the tendency by affirmative action cases to touch on sensitive topics such race, gender, sexual orientation and religion. For example, affirmative actions are criticized when it comes to admission of learners in schools as depicted in the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Allan Bakke (Ginsberg et al. 191). Those who are against it contest that the affirmative action program itself discriminate people based on race since it gives priority to a certain race leaving other races in the process (Cahn 23). The plaintiff claimed that that was it not affirmative action program, their results would have given them an opportunity to join the university of their choice. \u00a0
Others contest that the program can be a force that denies Asian-American students an opportunity to be admitted in high and good performing learning institutions despite their good results. Some groups also claim that affirmative action program supports some individuals who are considered to be from disadvantageous groups yet they are better off even those who are being discriminated against (Ginsberg et al. 192). Therefore they feel that it will be good if all people from all races are attended to equally. The analyst also records that the results of this program can still be harmful to those who are viewed to be benefiting from it since they can be given a chance which they are not ready for or it does not suit them, this means chances of failing to achieve the desired goal are low.
2.0 Intended Purpose of Affirmative Action
Though those supporting the affirmative action argue that it is meant to level uneven playing field in which discrimination still occur, I am against the view.\u00a0 I think affirmative action program is becoming a non-issue with the current digital world. Most of the activities are being carried out on the internet. Most of the people earning good salaries have internet connection in their homes. This means that most of their activities are carried out online. With this, chances of discrimination are still high. The reason being, there are no measures to ensure that discrimination is done away with when everybody who wishes to pursue it is doing it from the comfort of their home (Cahn 23).
3.0 Supreme Court Interpretation of Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
The Supreme Court has not been quick to make a decision on how the rights that were in 14th amendment can be affected. It was not in a position to give a ruling that was favorable to both the government and the public (Cahn 23). When it came the early 1920s, Supreme Court started accepting the application of 14th amendments. Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education are good examples of some of the cases that Supreme Court has tackled include. Also, the legislature in Louisiana had passed a law that required that black and white people have two separated location when it comes to traveling in the same vehicle. When Plessy was found seated on seat allocated to the white, he was arrested by the police and taken to court. In every court he argued that the legislature was violating 13th and 14th amendments, he was not successful in any of the courts (Cahn 23). His argument did not satisfy all courts until 1896 when he appealed to Supreme Court. Still, it ruled against him in that it considered the fact that since the vehicle was one, and everything was the same when the two races are separated it does not in any way affect the 14th amendment. The one judge who had a dissenting opinion out of eight implicated that the constitution could not clarify this appropriately leading to a majority decision. Another case was between Brown and the Board of Education (Ginsberg et al. 162).
Since the case of Plessy and Ferguson had been ruled, schools relied on the ruling to discriminate students by race (Cahn 23). They claimed that since the available facilities to all students were equal, separating them was not violating the law. In 1954, Brown took a step and tried to overturn the court ruling. He challenged the board of education which for a long time had laid its foundation on the case of Plessy and Ferguson to discriminate students relying on their race. Brown was successful and the board of education was found to be against the 14th Amendment\u2019s equal protection clause.
Recently, Allan Baker, who was a white man, had been denied an opportunity to join the University of California School of medicine. It happened more than once. The two times that Bakke tried, he missed the chance. The school needed to address the minority issues, therefore those who got those positions had poor performance compared to Bakke. He then went to court where he argued that he was missed the chance because he was a white man. The court found the institution to be violating the law. It directed that school to admit Bakke arguing its procedure of admitting students based on race was not right. The court cited that the school was against the clause of equal rights in the 14th amendment (Cahn 23).
4.0 Alternative Policies
The government can put in place several policies to not only reduce inequality status in the country but also address the inefficiencies of affirmative action policies and programs. For instance, the government can integrate diversity training and awareness programs in public sector organizations such as schools. Such policies would help ensure that children are educated on how to stay with others without looking their status in terms of background or race when they are still young (Mayeda et al. 220). Additionally, the government can establish streamlined early education system that meets the needs of children from high and low-income households. The early education system should provide a diverse and inclusive learning environment that ensures that poor children have equal learning opportunities just like their peers from high-income households.
Works cited
Cahn, Steven M., Ed. The affirmative action debate. Routledge, 2013.
Ginsberg, Benjamin., Lowi, Theodore J.Weir, Margaret,We The People: An Introduction To American Politics. New York : W.W. Norton, 2005. Print.
Mayeda, Elizabeth, Rose, et al. "Inequalities in dementia incidence between six racial and ethnic groups over 14 years." Alzheimer's " Dementia 12.3 (2016): 216-224.
