7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: − + − <ref>"Racial and ethnic classifications of any sort are inherently suspect and call for the most exacting judicial scrutiny. While the goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race in admissions decisions under some circumstances, petitioner's special admissions program, which forecloses consideration to persons like respondent, is unnecessary to the achievement of this compelling goal and therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause."</ref> − −
no edit summary
However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.
However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.
Luckily, Mr. Justice Powell concluded in Regents of the University Of California v. Bakke that
Luckily, Regents v. Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"
Bakke effectively outlawed this "sometimes called 'reverse discrimination.'"
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States law]]
[[Category:United States law]]