Discrimination Legislation
MGMT221-1004B-01
Nadeige Jovin
American Intercontinental University
11/07/2010

Abstract In order to complete the diversity training manual; as a human resources manager, this paper will cover the definition of Affirmative Action, explain what the initial intent of Affirmative-Action legislation was. It will also talk about the landmark Bakke versus Regents case concluded, give the positive and negative results of Affirmative Action legislation, and tell if the Affirmative Action legislation is still appropriate in that situation.

Discrimination Legislation
Introduction
Some form of affirmative action had existed in the late 1800s but the extension and enforcement of it really started in the late 1900s. Effectively, the term “affirmative action” was first employed by President Lyndon Johnson in1965 in the Executive Order 11246. The order was applied to the federal government employees to make sure they were employed, treated without regard to their race, belief, color, and nationality. That order was expanded to protect women from discrimination in 1967 by Lyndon Johnson (www.wisegeek.com, Oct, 2010).
Definition of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is a set of public positive policies and practices designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, against minorities in the search of employments, admission to colleges and universities or some government contracts. (www.thisnation.com, 1995). Affirmative action is an effort to encourage equal opportunity between everybody and it is frequently established in government and educational sites to guarantee that minority groups inside a society are included in all programs.
The intent of Affirmative Action legislation When first started at the federal level following passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action was designed to counteract the remaining effects of generations of past discrimination. The intent of affirmative action legislation was to extend equal opportunity for employment and financial improvement to those who in the past were automatically excluded. Affirmative action seeks to create more opportunities for women and minorities by giving them particular consideration and more choices relating in hiring, firing, promotion, college admissions, and government contracts. In all of these areas, women and minorities traditionally have been underrepresented.
The Bakke v. Regents case conclusion This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. Affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse discrimination. The case involved the University of California, Davis, Medical School, which had two separate admissions pools, one for standard applicants, and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held in a closely divided decision that race could be one of the factors considered in choosing a various student body in university admissions decisions. The Court also held, however, that the use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permitted. The Supreme Court was split 5-4 in its decision on the Bakke case and addressed only a minimal number of the many complex issues that had sprung up about affirmative action. As a result of the decision, Bakke was admitted to the medical school and graduated in 1982. (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com, 2010)
The basis for the conclusion The conclusion of the case was based on the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause. The clause stated that;” No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" (www.law.umkc.edu). Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun concluded the following: “Title VI proscribes only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause if employed by a State or its agencies. 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. Since petitioner could not satisfy its burden of proving that respondent would not have been admitted even if there had been no special admissions program, he must be admitted. Racial classifications call for strict judicial scrutiny. Nonetheless, the purpose of overcoming substantial, chronic minority underrepresentation in the medical profession is sufficiently important to justify petitioner's remedial use of race. Thus, the judgment below must be reversed in that it prohibits race from being used as a factor in university admissions.” (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com, Jun, 1978)
Positive and negative results of Affirmative Action legislation We all know that everything in life has their positive and negative effects, which is also the case of the affirmative action legislation. One of the positive results of the affirmative action legislative is an increase in hiring women and black people. Enterprises try their best to hire at least 25 percent of women, 25 percent of black, and another 50 percent of men. The negative consequences of it was the fact that the majority society considered the minority to be less qualified than their white complements. They also feel that this law was forcing them to hire less qualified black people in organizations just to fill in the positions. The biggest negative with Affirmative Action is the focus on employment and the lack of focus on ownership because the minority fields can have all the other positions and remain subordinates but they still cannot have the leadership ones (www.helium.com).
Conclusion
In today’s work environment, affirmative action is not appropriate because they are so many other laws fishing against discrimination and trying to reinforce, solidify workers rights and protect all employees at the workforce from any kind of discrimination and others mistreatments. That is way it is important for all employees to know the laws and their rights when they are employed at an organization.

Reference

Bucher, R. D., (2010), Diversity Consciousness: Opening Our Minds to People, Cultures, and Opportunities (3th Ed).Chap.6 & 8 Published by Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River.
Smith, S. E., (2010), what is Affirmative Action, Retrieved November, 4, 2010 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-affirmative-action.htm Supreme Court of the United States, (June, 1978). Regents of the University of California. Retrieved, November, 6, 2010 from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/bakke.html
Thompkins, H., (2010), the negatives aspects of affirmative action. Retrieved, November, 6, 2010 from http://www.helium.com/items/1743717-the-negative-aspects-of-affirmative-action.
U.S. Supreme Court (2010), University of California Regents v. Bakke, 1978. Retrieved, November, 5, 2010 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=265
What is Affirmative Action and why is it so controversial, (n. d.), Retrieved November, 4, 2010 from http://www.thisnation.com/question/044.html