An analysis of the history of discrimination the affirmative action and the arguments in favor and a

This Week at the Court The Supreme Court released orders from the November 16 conference on Monday morning; the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket. Guido State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of regardless of the number of employees they have.

An analysis of the history of discrimination the affirmative action and the arguments in favor and a

Affirmative Action and Financial Aid Affirmative action is often defined as the effort to improve access to higher education for minority and female students.

An analysis of the history of discrimination the affirmative action and the arguments in favor and a

It is typically implemented through special recruitment efforts and by giving special preferences to minorities. For example, given two comparable candidates, affirmative action chooses the minority candidate over the non-minority candidate.

Some of the key goals of affirmative action are to correct past discrimination at the college or university, to provide access to education to qualified and talented students of every race especially underrepresented minority studentsto level the playing field by compensating for or eliminating current cultural biases against minority students such as those inherent in standardized academic testsand to create diversity in the academic environment.

Diversity, in particular, can improve the educational experience of all students by promoting a variety of perspectives and a robust and enlightening exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

This document presents a lay interpretation of the laws and court cases affecting affirmative action, and does not provide legal advice nor is it intended to provide legal advice.

U.S. Supreme Court

All colleges, universities and race-based scholarship sponsors should have their admissions and financial aid policies reviewed by a qualified attorney. Federal Law Current US Supreme Court rulings permit public colleges and universities to consider race in college admissions and financial aid when it furthers "a compelling interest of the state in obtaining educational benefits that derive from a diverse student body".

Race may be considered as part of a holistic and flexible individual review process, but not as part of an automated mechanical process based on points or quotas. Race needs to be considered for more than just simple ethnic diversity.

The focus must be on the educational benefits that derive from a diverse student body, and diversity must consider not only race but also other characteristics that contribute to diversity. Educational benefits can include cross-racial understanding, the different perspectives of students who have experienced discrimination and related disadvantages, the breakdown of racial stereotypes, and the promotion of effective participation by all racial and ethnic groups.

Race may also be considered to compensate for actual past discrimination at the college or university. The discrimination must have occurred at the educational institution and not just in the local community or society at large.

The remedy must be in proportion to the past discrimination and thereby limited in duration. The US Supreme Court rulings give more detail on how to structure affirmative action processes in a constitutional manner, but the guidance is still somewhat limited, as follows: The US Supreme Court rulings apply to all public institutions and any private institution which receives federal funding.

State Law Several states have passed state restrictions on the use of race in college admissions and financial aid.

Since the US Supreme Court rulings permit the use of race in certain situations but do not mandate it, it is possible for individual states to pass more restrictive laws. The following states have passed laws further restricting the use of race in college admissions and financial aid.

See also the state attorney general's official summary. Proposition bans the use of race in college admissions and financial aid at California state colleges and universities through an amendment to the state constitution.

The key clause of Proposition states: The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Proposition permits colleges to continue to administer awards if the use of race or gender is required in order to receive Federal funds.

Florida Government Jeb Bush signed an executive order in November eliminating the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions to the state university system. Instead, the state adopted the "Talented 20 Program" which guarantees admission to students graduating in the top 20 percent of their classes and completing a specific minimum high-school curriculum.

The language is sufficiently broad as to affect both college admissions and financial aid: Similar language applies to the state, its political subdivisions and instrumentalities.

The amendment to the state constitution went into effect on December 23, Note that these state laws only apply to public institutions, not private colleges and universities. Impact on Private Colleges and Universities It isn't entirely clear whether private colleges and universities that receive federal funds i.

Affirmative Action

The argument that private colleges and universities are affected by the ruling hinges on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of CRAwhich bans discrimination on the basis of race at any institution that receives federal funds.

In addition, Title VII of the CRA, which bans discrimination in employment, may apply to graduate fellowship and assistantship programs to the extent that they can be construed as employment.

However, the recent US Supreme Court rulings did find that colleges have a compelling interest in the use of race in admissions, and so affirmative action is not in itself unconstitutional.

The government may treat individual people differently according to race only for the most compelling reasons and when the racial classification is narrowly tailored to further those compelling interests. When race must be considered to further a compelling interest, it does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment when the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest and the goal is sufficiently compelling to warrant the use of race.

Rather, it is only the University of Michigan's automated approach using a point system that is not narrowly tailored and hence unconstitutional.

This means that private colleges can continue to consider using race in college admissions and financial aid, to the extent that they do not rely on mechanical formulas involving race.

Since private colleges tend to review every application and use a more subjective process, they can avoid the need to use an automated system involving race. This gives them an advantage over public colleges, which are often faced with a much larger applicant pool and class size.

In addition, schools that receive Federal funds are bound by Title I, Part B, Section a of the Higher Education Act of which prohibits using federal funds, directly or indirectly, to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin, by Title IX, Section of the Education Amendments ofwhich bars discrimination on the basis of sex note exception in a 9 for scholarships awarded by beauty pageantsand by the Age Discrimination Act ofwhich bars discrimination on the basis of age.

There are also several Federal regulations that prohibit discrimination in the provision of financial aid.This lesson provides you with an overview of affirmative action in the workplace, including its pros and cons. We'll also look at some examples of how affirmative action helps or hurts in the.

1 On September 25, , President George W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of (ADA Amendments Act), Public Law The ADA Amendments Act amended the ADA definition of disability to clarify its coverage of persons with disabilities and to provide guidance on the application of the definition.

Aug 31,  · Roger Clegg is president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity.I’ve been asked to discuss what will happen in the area of racial preferences – a.k.a. “affirmative action”. According to a recent survey, Americans don’t like racial preferences. This is not news, being quite in line with many earlier polls, but the time and place here are rather propitious, with the Harvard affirmative-action case going to trial next week.

Aug 31,  · Roger Clegg is president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. I’ve been asked to discuss what will happen in the area of racial preferences – a.k.a. “affirmative action” – if Justice Antonin Scalia’s successor is a conservative.

For Blacks, segregation, exploitation, and abuse permeate every aspect of life. Though almost two-thirds of the county is Black, of the county's hospital beds are reserved for whites-only.

Implied Causes of Action | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys