When does affirmative action apply?
Rejection of Abigail Fisher by university of Texas at Austin on the basis of race is based on the federal court that upheld the right of admission. The concern as they were presented in 2003 on Grutten v. Bollinger case of admission at University of Michigan Law School was ruled on the affirmative action. Giving the disadvantaged group priority has been positively accepted in distribution of the available chances (Brown, Langer and Stewart 327). In the case of Fisher concerning the interpretation of the admission rule, the main idea is on understanding how the affirmative actions are based and applied. The criteria that is applied in the selection of the limit to exclude one and at the same time the disadvantaged group is given a chance in accessing the services provided.
The affirmative action should be applied to remove both cases as it helps in the provision of the changes to the disadvantaged groups (Scaramella, Cox and McCamey 364). It helps in the reduction of discriminative actions in most institutions and especially in school admission. At the same time, the application of the affirmative action should be control to prevent the abolition of rights of parties that are involved.
The application of the race-neutral alternatives principle by Supreme Court, some of the external interests and factors that are based on the positions being offered are supposed to be reflected (Scaramella, Cox and McCamey 436). According to Fisher, the chances are supposed to be evaluated for the viability and credibility of the person being accorded and seeking for a chance in admission. The affirmative action helps to raise the disadvantaged group in attaining the standards of the other people and also not preventing others from the same privileges.
Punishment for Tragic Accident
Harris and his 22-month-old son by the name cooper took their breakfast in a restaurant and thereafter set to work. Hurriedly to the office, the father left his child in the car for seven hours. The situation worsens as the high temperature and the hot car claimed the life of the child. Therefore, the father forgot about his son in the car and worked throughout without reflection of the day.
The case filed on the crime of cruelty to the child, and second-degree murder is justified and hence fair for the father of the child to face trial (McCord, McCord and Bailey 264). Even though, the intention was not to murder the son, the father is ignorant of the issues and accident that would happen to the child. Working for seven hours without reflecting the events that took place is not normal and hence the father should have remembered that he was with his son for breakfast. The responsibility of the father was both the work and most importantly the child. It proves that he did not take care for the child he cared more about the work.
The concerns of the child are based with the father's responsibility. The interpretation of the case is based on the possibility of a person working for seven hours and not taking a rest (Gilbert, Clevenger and York 329). If this had happened, the parent would have had the time to reflect back and realize the child was still in the car. The charges on the cruelty to the child and a second-degree murderer are fair, and he should face the law.
In the campaign 2008, for the presidency in united states, Shephard Fairey made a Hope Poster that was a symbol of Obama's campaign. After the election, the owner of the poster through the associated press freelance, Mannie Garcia claimed for the compensation for the work. It was clear when Fairey responded that the poster did not affect or reduce the value of the original photograph.
The function of copyright is to safeguard the originality and the source of the information from the original work (Gupta, Gantz and Sreecharana 409). Compensation for the owners of the original work had to be paid the owner of the poster hence. He has the copyright which should be published and hence ensuring no one can use it without his knowledge (Holzinger, Roban and Group 251). The source of the photograph that is used during the campaign was supposed to be established before its use. It would have prevented Fairey from getting the advantages that are associated with the product.
The matter was also supposed to be raised during the campaign event by the owner of the original photograph in the poster. The right channel that the owner was supposed to go through is court whereby the campaigner by the name Fairey could have prevented from unlawful gains (Gupta, Gantz and Sreecharana 231). The owner of the publication is entitled to the benefits that are associated with the original work. The response that is given by Fairey clearly indicates that he had the knowledge of the owner of the photograph. He knew very well he had benefited from the poster during the campaign era and hence he does not mind the source.
Works Cited
Brown, Graham K, Arnim Langer and Frances Stewart. Affirmative action in plural societies : international experiences. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Gilbert, Frank B, Joseph R Clevenger and New York. Criminal law and practice of the state of New York,. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Gupta, Amar, et al. Intellectual property for paralegals : the law of trademarks, copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. Princeton, NJ: Recording for Blind & Dyslexic, 2008.
Holzinger, Anne, Roberta L Roban and West Group. The Interplay of Offshoring of Professional Services, Law, Intellectual Property, and International Organizations. Eagan, MN: West Group, 2005.
McCord, James W H, Sandra L McCord and C Suzanne Bailey. Criminal law and procedure for the paralegal : a systems approach. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage Learning, 2012.
Scaramella, Gene L, Steven M Cox and William McCamey. Improving academic achievement : impact of psychological factors on education. Amsterdam ; Boston: Academic Press, 2002.
