An affirmative action is a term that is widely used to refer to variety of efforts designed to assist the minority groups. The affirmative action exists in three major areas within the distributive policies. The areas under focus where affirmative action is practiced include education, employment, and government contracts. In America, the concept of affirmative action began in the late 1960s and the early 1970s through executive orders. President Kennedy gave orders that required that a given percentage of government contracts and employment opportunities be reserve for the minority (Irons 203). Moreover, hire education sector was also required to adopt affirmative action over the same period. With time, the concept of affirmative action gained momentum in America and African Americans, Hispanic, and other minority groups are integrated into the education and economic mainstream in America.
Despite the fact that affirmative action was meant to quell discrimination based on race and religion, the concept has been embroiled in deep controversy over the years. The fact that there is preferential treatment to others based on their racial characteristics has not gone down well with others (Irons 203). According to the various critics to the concept of affirmative option, they are of the view that over the years, the concept has abused the need for equality, which was its primary objective and it degenerated into “statistical parity.” The other members of the minority groups are also opposed to the concept of affirmative action in America because it does not accord them preferential treatment with regard to distributive policies on employment, education, and other government related contracts. The major goal of affirmative actions was to advocate for the realization of the American dream by actively involving the minority group who had been traditional locked out in the affairs of the state.
Competing models of Justice
There exist two competing models of justice, which adds to the controversy surrounding the idea of affirmative action. One such model considers racial discrimination and the potential remedies in terms of defined identifiable grouping. According to this model, all individuals who have traditionally belonged to a disfavored community are entitled to some form of remedy. On the other hand, the other model, which is the individualistic model, avers that an individual is only entitled to remedy when such an individual is able to show that he has been adversely affected by racial discrimination. The conflict of the two models is also manifested in the fact that the traditional principles of law and contemporary politics are parallel in their provisions. In terms of politics, which is pluralistic in nature champions for group’s interests while the legal systems, is based on the concept of individualism. The controversy can also be illuminated through the Bakke and Fullilove cases, the Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence on Affirmative Action Programs.
The Bakke and Fullilove cases and the Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence
Bakke brought a case against the University of California in 1978 in which he accused the University of refusing him admission at the university yet he ahead better academic credentials than the majority of the sixteen minority students who had been admitted at the university. The Supreme Court held that Bakke should be admitted at the university based on equal protection of human rights (Irons 203). On the other hand, the case Fullilove v. Klutznick , the supreme court upheld that federal public works program which set aside ten percent of work of the federal funds for the minority group enterprise is lawful and pursuant to the affirmative action.
The conflicting judgment by the Supreme Court on Bakke case and case on Fullilove shows that America has limited affirmative action programs. In the case of Bakke, the Supreme Court disregarded affirmative action while in Fullilove’s case, the court upheld affirmative action. In order to address this apparent conflict, the Rehnquist courts have set limits to the affirmative action’s programs by ensuring that they do not override seniority in determining layoffs or when the fundamental rights of the majority are violated.
Work Cited
Irons, Peter H. A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. New York: Penguins. 2006. Print.
