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. How to break ties between students who had schools that offer more AP courses or more concurrent enrollment courses? Do not ever express that diligent Asian kids make more sacrifices than diligent Latino kids.
That is not accurate. Every kid we are discussing already made the admissions cut. Affirmative action does not drop the standard to apply. The idea is how to balance and break ties between kids with different opportunities to succeed.
Paul, there are no other public universities in California. The only students under discussion here are those who qualified by passing the A to G curriculum and who earned high enough SAT scores. This is the messed-up part of the discussion because there is no different standard to be admitted … Read More. This is the messed-up part of the discussion because there is no different standard to be admitted to the UC system than to the CSU system. Absolutely no difference in minimum threshold now in California.
My point is that the system of admission should be about mastery and not about competition. Why in the world do we see that as acceptable? Peele, you have started the article "okay," but please convince your employers to permit you to dig more deeply.
What percentage of academically-eligible Latinos were rejected from the entire UC system? UC no longer is considered the preferred system for undergraduate education in California, at least not for Latino students.
You need to disaggregate the data so we see how many students decline UC Merced in favor of accepting offers to a more competitive CSU. The old people on both boards of regents assume that UC offers more elite undergraduate education overall. This is an inappropriate assumption in However there are multiple CSUs. Are qualified Latinos rejecting thousands of admittance offers to 2nd and 3rd tier UC campuses to attend more desirable CSU campuses?
CSU enrolled , undergrads in , the plurality of which are Latinos. UC enrolled , undergrads in , the plurality of which are Asian-Americans. Same minimum standards now for system admission, which was not the case in CSU has raised admission standards.
This allowed the administration to argue it was not setting quotas, though critics of the plan suggested the administration was in fact doing so. The Philadelphia Plan, developed by Assistant Labor Secretary Arthur Fletcher during the Nixon Administration, survived several challenges, both legal and Congressional, before being accepted as legitimate.
The Plan set the tone for affirmative action plans that followed. Soon, the standards put forth in the Philadelphia Plan were incorporated into Executive Order which affected all federal government contractors, who were required for the first time to put forth written affirmative action plans with numerical targets.
After the implementation of the Philadelphia Plan, legislation was passed at the federal, state, and municipal levels implementing affirmative action plans using the Philadelphia Plan as a model. Today, almost all government affirmative action plans are offshoots of the Philadelphia Plan. An often-used -- and misused -- term in the lexicon of affirmative action is "quotas. The courts, however, have provided a more accurate and precise definition: an absolute requirement that an employer hire a certain number of or percentage of employees from a specified group, without regard to the availability of qualified candidates or the presence of more qualified members of other groups.
Such quotas are legally impermissible and are not a component of lawful affirmative action programs. What affirmative action does sometimes involve is the establishment of a numerically expressed hiring goal, often in connection with a timetable.
Indeed, as mentioned above, the Executive Order program covering federal contractors relies on the use of goals. Having established a goal, which is tied to the availability of qualified minority and women workers in the labor market, the employer pledges a "good faith" effort to achieve the goal.
Failure to achieve the goal, however, does not, in and of itself, subject the employer to sanctions unless the affirmative action has been judicially ordered as a remedy to illegal discrimination. Ironically, affirmative action is used to eliminate the effects of preferences enjoyed by some for more than three centuries.
In a news release of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights regarding the language used by the proponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in , executive director Wade Henderson stated: "We oppose this deceptive initiative. We are disappointed that Connerly's word games are reflected in the ballot language, however, we are confident that Michigan voters, upon learning the intent of MCRI, will come out in droves to oppose the initiative.
Placement goals also are used to measure progress toward achieving equal employment opportunity. In the event of a substantial disparity in the utilization of a particular minority group or in the utilization of men or women of a particular minority group, a contractor may be required to establish separate goals for those groups.
Quotas are expressly forbidden. Placement goals do not provide the contractor with a justification to extend a preference to any individual, select an individual, or adversely affect an individual's employment status, on the basis of that person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
Affirmative action programs prescribed by the regulations in this part do not require a contractor to hire a person who lacks qualifications to perform the job successfully, or hire a less qualified person in preference to a more qualified one.
The Supreme Court first addressed affirmative action in three key cases in the late s: In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , the Supreme Court ruled that the University's special admission program setting aside a fixed number of seats for minorities at its medical school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination by federally funded programs. At the same time, however, in an opinion written by Justice Powell, it ruled that race could lawfully be considered as one of several factors in making admissions decisions.
In his opinion, Justice Powell noted that lawful affirmative action programs may be based on reasons other than redressing past discrimination -- in particular, a university's educational interest in attaining a diverse student body could justify appropriate affirmative action programs. Weber involved a new in-plant training program for workers at a Louisiana plant that had hired few minorities in skilled positions.
The employer and the union had agreed that 50 percent of the positions in the training program would go to African American employees and 50 percent to whites. Within each group, positions would be filled on the basis of seniority, meaning some junior African Americans would be admitted ahead of more senior whites.
In rejecting the claims of a white employee that the program violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Court said the law allowed affirmative action by private parties "to eliminate traditional patterns of racial segregation". One test of lawfulness was whether the program "unduly" trampled on the interests of white workers. The Court held that the plan passed the test because it did not require firing any white workers, nor did it create an "absolute bar" to white advancement. The plan was also permissible because it was "a temporary measure; it [was] not intended to maintain racial balance, but simply to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance.
Klutznick , the Supreme Court upheld a congressionally- enacted 10 percent minority business set-aside of federal funds for state and local public works. In the ruling, the Court stressed the remedial nature of the set-aside, with Chief Justice Burger writing that the program "was designed to ensure that The Supreme Court continued to wrestle with the difficult issue of balance into the s. In Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department the Court took on the hard issue of whether seniority would determine the order of layoffs in the Memphis fire department even at the cost of wiping out affirmative action.
It ruled that Title VII "precludes a district court from displacing a non-minority employee with seniority under the contractually established seniority system absent either a finding that the seniority system was adopted with discriminatory intent or a determination that such a remedy was necessary to make whole a proven victim of discrimination. Even before the ruling in Stotts , the Reagan Justice Department, under Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, had abandoned the department's traditionally vigorous enforcement of federal equal employment laws.
In testimony before Congress, Reynolds said the department would end the use of any goals and timetables as a remedy to correct discrimination -- a stance the department carried into its court cases, relying almost exclusively on recruitment programs as remedies for employment discrimination, but refusing to look at the number of minorities or women actually hired or promoted.
At the same time, Reynolds and the department sought to undo the affirmative action remedies that had been agreed to prior to the Reagan administration. Reynolds construed Stotts as holding that any form of race or gender-conscious relief were impermissible. These views were rejected by the courts.
The court in again emphasized that lawful affirmative action programs cannot require that male workers be discharged to make way for female workers. In Wygant v.
Jackson Board of Education , the Court held that a public employer may not lay off more senior white workers to protect the jobs of less senior black workers. Men and whites cannot be excluded from consideration for opportunities; all candidates must have the chance to compete and have their qualifications compared to others. Two of the court's rulings -- U. Paradise and Johnson v. In Paradise, the Court upheld a one-for-one promotion requirement i. In the second case, Johnson v.
Transportation Agency , Santa Clara County , the Court upheld an employer's affirmative action plan that allowed gender to be considered as a positive factor when choosing among qualified candidates for jobs in which women were severely underrepresented.
The employer developed its plan after its review found that no women were employed in any of its skilled craft jobs. Both Paul Johnson the male plaintiff claiming reverse discrimination and Diane Joyce the woman who ultimately received the promotion to road dispatcher had the requisite four years' experience, although Ms. Joyce's experience was more recent and arguably more relevant.
Johnson received a score of 75 to Ms. Joyce's 73 in the graded oral interview, where 70 was a passing score. The Court upheld the county's use of Ms. Joyce's gender as a positive factor in choosing between these similarly-qualified candidates -- especially since no woman had ever held the position of road dispatcher. By , the composition of the Supreme Court had changed and now included a strong majority of justices suspicious, if not downright hostile, to affirmative action.
That hostility was evidenced in the Court's ruling in City of Richmond v. Croson , invalidating Richmond, Virginia's local ordinance establishing a minority business set-aside program.
In Croson , for the first time, the Court adopted the strict scrutiny standard of review demanding that an affirmative action program be supported by a "compelling government interest" and narrowly tailored to ensure the program fits that interest. While not rejecting all governmental race- conscious remedies, the Court set a very high standard for their continued use by state and local governments.
The court extended this tough standard in its ruling in Adarand Constructors v. Pena , a decision holding that strict scrutiny would also apply to federal affirmative action programs although leaving open some issues, such as the degree of deference to be given to programs established by Congress. Again, however, the Court refused to reject properly-designed affirmative action.
As Justice O'Connor emphasized: "The unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minorities in this country is an unfortunate reality and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it. The court's decision in Adarand emboldened affirmative action's opponents to launch a full-scale assault in Congress and in state legislatures, as well as in the courts. They saw some success on the state level, as California enacted Proposition in , which prohibits all affirmative action programs in employment, education, and contracting.
The State of Washington followed suit as well, with Initiative The effect of such efforts soon became clear, as the number of African Americans and Latinos admitted to California's top public universities quickly plummeted. Such initiatives, however, have failed in other states. At the federal level, President Clinton immediately made clear his determination to "mend, not end" affirmative action in light of the Adarand decision.
It began simply as a means to an end of enduring national purpose — equal opportunity for all Americans. The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender or race from President Clinton at the National Archives opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute.
Affirmative action is an effort to develop a systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced longstanding and persistent discrimination.
It is a policy that grew out of many years of trying to navigate between two unacceptable pasts. One was to say simply that we declared discrimination illegal and that's enough. We saw that that way still relegated blacks with college degrees to jobs as railroad porters, and kept women with degrees under a glass ceiling with a lower paycheck.
The other path was simply to try to impose change by leveling draconian penalties on employers who didn't meet certain imposed, ultimately arbitrary, and sometimes unachievable quotas. That, too, was rejected out of a sense of fairness. So a middle ground was developed that would change an inequitable status quo gradually, but firmly, by building the pool of qualified applicants for college, for contracts, for jobs, and giving more people the chance to learn, work and earn.
When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works…. The Administration's efforts paid off. Affirmative action's opponents failed in their attempts to move legislation in the late s that would have banned all federal affirmative action programs. In fact, in , Congress reauthorized the disadvantaged business enterprise DBE program run by the Department of Transportation DOT by an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
The DBE program relies on a system of aspirational goals established by states and localities based on the local availability of qualified DBEs. DOT has never penalized a state or locality for failing to achieve its goals, and the program explicitly prohibits quotas. While consistently maintaining the constitutionality of its DBE regulations, the Department of Transportation made further changes in the DBE designed to improve the program's effectiveness and tailor it even more narrowly in response to the Adarand decision.
In the fall of , the 10th Circuit agreed, concluding that the regulations satisfied strict scrutiny because they were justified by the government's compelling interest in ending discrimination against minority contractors and they were appropriately and narrowly tailored. In , the Supreme Court accepted this case for review. Affirmative action in education has faced similar setbacks in the courts.
In Hopwood v. Texas in , the Fifth Circuit dismissed Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke , ruling that a university's interest in a diverse student body was never compelling, and that race could no longer be used as one among several factors in admissions decisions in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Earlier, in , a Fourth Circuit panel ruled in Podberesky v. Kirwan that race-based scholarships were unconstitutional despite extensive evidence offered by the state of Maryland that such scholarships were an effective means of correcting the state's own past discrimination against African American students.
The years and brought mixed results in the lower courts, as one district court judge, for example, upheld the affirmative action program used by the University of Michigan Law School, while another struck down the university's undergraduate admissions program.
In the U. In Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. In Gratz and Grutter the Court gave deference to the University's experience and expertise about its educational mission. However, once the University has established that its goal of diversity is consistent with strict scrutiny, the University must prove that the means it chose to attain that diversity are narrowly tailored to its goal. In Gratz , the undergraduate program, which accorded one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was not narrowly tailored and did not provide the individualized consideration Justice Powell contemplated in Regents of the University of California v.
In Grutter , a opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race.
In , the Supreme Court once again upheld the notion that diversity in higher education admissions was a compelling state interest. In Abigail Fisher v. Moreover, in remanding the case to the lower court, the Court held that the University must show that such a classification is "necessary. Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran.
OFCCP requires a contractor, as a condition of having a federal contract, to engage in a self-analysis for the purpose of discovering any barriers to equal employment opportunity.
Use precise geolocation data. Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile. Measure ad performance. Select basic ads. 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. The term affirmative action refers to a policy aimed at increasing workplace or educational opportunities for underrepresented parts of society.
These programs are commonly implemented by businesses and governments by taking individuals' race, sex, religion, or national origin into account. Affirmative action focuses on demographics with historically low representation in leadership, professional, and academic roles and is often considered a means of countering discrimination against particular groups.
Affirmative action is a government-backed policy that was developed to help underrepresented groups get access to opportunities in academia, as well as the workforce and government. These opportunities range from admissions to schools, professional positions, and access to services like housing and financing. The main point of the policy was to help diversify various parts of society.
The policy came to prominence in the United States in the s as a way to promote equal opportunity across various segments of society. The policy was developed to enforce the Civil Rights Act of , which sought to eliminate discrimination. Early implementations of affirmative action largely focused on breaking the continued social segregation of minorities from institutions and opportunities. Despite legislation that outlawed biased practices in the United States, tangible change in the status quo was not immediate.
As noted above, affirmative action was primarily geared toward certain groups, including racial minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
Campaigns in more recent years have expanded to make organizations and institutions more inclusive, pushing for greater gender diversity. Newer policies are also aimed at providing more access to opportunities for covered veterans and people with disabilities. Affirmative action was enacted to provide underrepresented groups a more accurate representation within key roles in government, business, and academic positions.
Efforts to stimulate such change can take the form of assistance to increase the opportunities available to underrepresented groups. This aid can include grants , scholarships, and other financial support earmarked to help those segments of the population gain access to higher education. Hiring practices may be structured to require the inclusion of diverse candidates for job openings. Government agencies may decide to mandate that companies and institutions populate their ranks with a minimum percentage of qualified professionals from varying ethnicities, genders, and cultures.
Failure to meet such requirements could disqualify institutions from receiving government funding or being able to compete for public contracts. Many people confuse employment equity with affirmative action. But there's a distinct difference between the two. Employment equity ensures that all individuals are treated equally while affirmative action actually supports those who have historically been denied opportunities.
The implementation and continued practice of affirmative action policies have drawn strong support as well as staunch criticism. One of the obvious benefits of implementing affirmative action policies is that it provides opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn't have them.
This includes access to education for students who may be disadvantaged and employees who are normally blocked from rising up on the corporate ladder.
0コメント