Where is affirmative action today

Create a personalised ads profile. Select personalised ads. Apply market research to generate audience insights. Measure content performance. Develop and improve products. List of Partners vendors. Your Money. Personal Finance.

Your Practice. Popular Courses. What Is Affirmative Action? It provides assistance to groups that have historically been and continue to be subjected to forms of discrimination. Policies often implement hiring quotas, provide grants and scholarships, and may also deny government funding and contracts to institutions that fail to follow the policy guidelines Affirmative action now includes assistance for gender representation, people with disabilities, and covered veterans.

The criticism of affirmative action includes high program costs, hiring fewer qualified candidates, and a lack of historical progress in equal representation. Pros Provides opportunities for minorities and people from disadvantaged groups Diversifies society.

Cons Costs to implement policies can be too high Leads to reverse discrimination. What Is the Goal of Affirmative Action? How Did Regents v. Bakke Change Affirmative Action Policies? Which U. Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts. We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate.

You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear. Investopedia does not include all offers available in the marketplace. Related Terms Combating the Financing of Terrorism CFT Combating the Financing of Terrorism is a set of policies aimed to deter and prevent funding of activities intended to achieve religious or ideological goals through violence.

Social Justice Definition Social justice is a concept holding that all people should have equal access to wealth, health, well-being, privileges, and opportunity. Community Land Trust A community land trust is a private, non-profit organization that promotes affordable housing and community development through land ownership. What Is Egalitarianism? Egalitarianism is a philosophical perspective that emphasizes equality across gender, religion, economic status, and political beliefs.

Subsequent laws provide more protection, but discrimination endures. What Is Redlining? This is a product of unqualified Asians from being barred from entering the US in the first place. Accepting people based off their opportunities, family, and socioeconomic status is fair, but using race as a tool, and calling Asians extra privileged, like they never experience any racism or backlash is cruel to say the least.

There are kids from the same schools, same type of family, and yet the Asian ones are always seemed to be more privileged. Some may be, but some are not. Some come from difficult, fractured families too, their parents own small shops and businesses.

People have a hard time realizing that Asians are not always vibing. Giving kids from disadvantaged locations, with economic disadvantages and less resources a boost in the system is fair, but using race as a factor is divisive and counterproductive. Especially when overqualified people from the same school with the same resources get accepted over another kid with a different race. Of course, the greatest thing would be directly trying to help Latinx and Black kids become just as competitive in the process, but the government seems to think those races are incapable of having the comparable qualifications, which is a product of them not putting resources or time into those communities.

You are incredibly thoughtful and present such salient points. If you have any ideas on how to create a better work ethic for students, I would be delighted if you would share. The most accurate way to describe Prop. The universities employ all kinds of proxy schemes to admit more of the their preferenced races and ethnicities. Post , they ran models to try to gauge their effectiveness.

Imagine doing that for white students. Paraphrasing the old racial complaint, these were neutral on their face but discriminatory in intent. I heartily agree with comments of MH. Returning to race-based selection in the United States of America in Year ? The truth is "affirmative action" feels good for the architects, but it creates lasting doubt about self-worth in recipients and engenders resentment and disdain from those who don't benefit from it.

Make better K public education in California … Read More. Make better K public education in California a top priority — prepare, focus and spend as if excellent public schooling were a space program or a foreign war or an economic bailout — as if our future depended on it. For one hundred years [ ], California taxpayers funded the zero tuition, world class University of California, Berkeley, for their children.

How was that possible? Today, Californians and others can't afford to send their children to University. What happened to state funding? Here is my theory: The essential bases for the lack of current funding are: the electorate became fragmented [e pluribus multum and a resultant diminution of "sense of collective responsibility"], California became overpopulated, the additional population … Read More. As a consequence [somewhat simplified] State funds previously used to support the University were diverted to increased funding of K12, to prisons, and to welfare.

Our state legislators are largely ambitious politicians looking for re-election and higher office. They strongly prefer to fund new programs that they can claim credit for rather than proven existing programs that benefit people.

They are certainly not diverting money to K We should emulate Texas and make the legislature part time. It's easy to tell when when someone is writing fake news to deceive the casual reader as they use enrollment data rather than admissions data. Colleges and Universities only control admissions, they have can only wait to see who choses to attend.

For example let's look at the statement "Black student enrollment in CSU and UC remains lower than their share of high school graduates in California. For Fall Well over half of admitted African American chose not to attend. Well prepared African American students have numerous options at private colleges that may offer room and board and perhaps a stipend.

Just because African American students have so many options is not an indictment of our admissions system. Anytime you see someone writing about admissions and then switching to enrollment data without noting the difference they are likely intentionally deceptive.

It also deflects from the real issues concerning local social and educational dysfunction. But politicians and higher ed admin lack the honesty and courage needed to focus on the change needed to affect the outcomes they say they desire. If it does not have the capacity to educate all students then it should subsidize students to go to private or other public universities.

Totally agree Paul. It is also unconscionable to discriminate against another ethnicity, Asians, because they made sacrifices and worked hard in K to get into a UC. Some say it is even against the milestone Civil Rights Act of !

Glad to hear Prop 16 is losing in the polls. Sometimes voters are wiser than our CA politicians and other so-called leaders. The issue Is all about which UC. UC does not publish a different admission standard for each UC campus. The eligibility standard to be allowed to apply is completed A through G courses. Minority individuals may question whether the rules were bent in their case, leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence. Third, preferential treatment programs encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the work place or classroom.

Fourth, as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups. Finally, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. And members of groups excluded by preferential treatment programs today will demand tomorrow to be compensated for opportunities denied them. Already the nation is witnessing a barrage of allegations and lawsuits filed by non-minorities charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission.

While the harms resulting from preferential treatment are considerable, critics charge, the benefits are questionable.

Giving preference to women and minorities fails to benefit the individuals within these groups who are most likely to have suffered the effects of discrimination and thus most deserving of compensation; the most disadvantaged individuals often lack, the qualifications and skills even to be considered for employment positions or college placement. This is borne out in reports that cite a growing gap between poor blacks with little education and job skills and affluent blacks able to take advantage of a wide variety of employment and educational opportunities.

Nor is it clear that even those minorities and women qualifying for preferential treatment benefit from such special consideration. Recent studies reveal a high dropout rate among minority college students admitted under affirmative action programs.

Berkeley, for example, only 45 percent of black students admitted in had graduated by compared to 73 percent of Anglos. The high rate of failure that follows the award of employment and educational opportunities to minority individuals unprepared to meet the challenges of higher education reinforces feelings of inferiority among members of these groups.

In Defense of Preferential Treatment Preferential treatment programs are often defended on the grounds of distributive justice, which requires that society's benefits and burdens be distributed equitably among its members.

As a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Entrenched and subtle discriminatory policies and practices continue to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams.

A recent study of 94 Fortune companies revealed that only 2. In , the wages of women working in full-time jobs were 72 percent those of men.

That same year the unemployment rate for blacks was Preferential treatment programs seek to reduce these disparities as justice requires.

Those who support preferential policies also appeal to the principle of compensatory justice, which states that people who have been treated unjustly ought to be compensated. Throughout history, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education.

And while many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects. As descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males. Preferential treatment programs compensate for past harms and present disadvantages by giving qualified members of these groups preference in hiring or college admissions.

Supporters of preferential treatment policies counter the charge that preferential treatment is as unjust as past discrimination. Past practices, fueled by ignorance, contempt, and hatred, systematically relegated minorities and women to inferior positions in society, while concentrating power and wealth in the hands of white males.

Preferential treatment programs, in contrast, are not motivated by contempt for non-minorities and aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits. In response to the objection that preferential policies impose unfair burdens on today's white males, who are not responsible for injustices committed in the past, supporters of preferential treatment programs argue that while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects.

Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots.