She calls for a "revisioning" of affirmative action, arguing that we need to clarify our understanding of what it means in reality rather than to "reform" it otherwise, the reformation could ensure continued discrimination against women and minorities, rather than leading to the stated goal of equal opportunity for all. The author's conclusion is that affirmative action serves the goal of equality of opportunity rather than that of equality of condition. Eliminating discrimination and guaranteeing equal opportunity require additional action, affirmative action. Thus, because of the discounting that operates in the subjective evaluations inevitably involved in making the hiring, promotion, and other job-related decisions, guaranteeing equal opportunity involves much more than simply mandating that the decision makers be neutral, or non-prejudiced, in their actions. This "discounting" denies equal opportunity to women and minorities. Social scientists have conducted extensive research that has conclusively demonstrated that women and minorities' qualifications are subjected to "discounting," an evaluation that is lower simply because the evaluator knows the person's gender or race. Title VII's goal was to eliminate discrimination in the work place against members of protected classes. The Article focuses on affirmative action in employment. Because issues involving affirmative action in employment and education raise different issues, they need to be addressed separately. Bakke-in which race and sex are to be used as "plus" factors in admissions and hiring decisions-in actuality promotes equality of condition which inevitably leads to preferential treatment and a lowering of standards, or merely guarantees the equality of opportunity which has long been part of our national heritage. Transportation Agency and by Justice Powell in his opinion in Regents of California v. The major question underlying this Article is whether the kind of affirmative action programs envisioned in Johnson v.
For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own. Instead of guaranteeing equality of opportunity, affirmative action, the critics charge, has resulted in preferential treatment for women and minorities and reverse discrimination against Caucasian men. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice. The perception is that with respect to employment and education the original goal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of guaranteeing equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, has been poisoned by the "toxin" known as affirmative action. Affirmative action is under attack from many quarters and appears to be a policy that will soon be a remnant of late-twentieth century public policy history.
0 kommentar(er)
