Controversy surrounding the effectiveness of affirmative action is often based on the idea of ​​class inequality. However, affirmative action regulations prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in decisions regarding hiring, firing, compensation, or other forms of employment. job. Although established to protect minorities, Affirmative Action has failed to do its job properly and is failing American workers of all backgrounds, regardless of color, race, religion or creed. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you cannot base a hiring decision, in whole or in party, on a person's race or gender. . We have conflicting laws that are designed to abolish prejudice and yet determined to create it. Nine states have already banned Affirmation Action because of the inequities it causes in the workplace. California (1996), Texas (1996), Washington (1998), Florida (1999), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), Arizona (2010), New Hampshire (2012) and Oklahoma (2012). People are beginning to realize that in addition to the advantages, affirmative action has many disadvantages. Examples would be: It promotes reverse decimation, it further reinforces stereotypes, diversity can be as bad as it is good, it changes standards of accountability, it diminishes the outcomes achieved by minority groups and one's personal biases will disappear always. To justify our opposition to affirmative action, let's first look at racial affirmative action. We find that the program itself actually benefits middle and upper class Hispanic Americans and middle and upper class African Americans at the expense of lower economic class Asian Americans as well as European Americans . This dispute supports the idea of ​​exclusively class-based affirmative action, meaning that America's poor or financially disadvantaged are excessively made up of people of color, so class-based affirmative action would unduly help people of color. This would eliminate the need for race-based affirmative action and reduce any lopsided advantages for middle- and upper-class people of color. May 19, 1986 Wygant V. Jackson Board of Education: This case challenged a school's policy of protecting minority employees by firing non-minority teachers first, even though non-minority employees had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the school board, saying that the harms suffered by affected non-minorities could not justify the benefits granted to minorities: "We have previously expressed concern about the burden that a system of preferential layoffs imposes to innocent parties. In cases involving valid hiring purposes, the burden borne by innocent individuals is widely distributed throughout society at large. Although hiring targets may burden some innocent people, they simply do not impose the same type of harm as layoffs. The denial of a future employment opportunity is not as intrusive as the loss of an existing job” (Santini, 2019). So in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot fire those who are not a minority simply because they are not a minority. this color, this race,this gender category, but they claim that "rejecting a future job opportunity is not as intrusive as losing an existing job", how come they can predict the future or state that a person of no lower economic class. All lower-class citizens should then be lumped into the category of special privileges, regardless of race, color, sex, or religion. How can we draw lines when lines drawn in the sand are easily swept away by the waves of poverty that affect all members of society, regardless of orientation or skin color? Affirmative action only sees color and gender and not equality of opportunity through hard work and determination. It only considers the less fortunate who may not be willing to work harder for something because they believe they have the right to deserve it. This is a problem for any person of color, race, or gender, not just non-minorities and minorities. It's a question that concerns all members of society: do we want a government that wants us to be depressed and therefore have to rely on it to pick us up, or do we want a government that gives us the right to have our true freedom? so that we can rise like a phoenix from the ashes of our struggle and deliver ourselves to success and prosperity? Other opponents of affirmative action call it reverse discrimination, arguing that "affirmative action requires the very discrimination it seeks to eliminate." Thus, according to these challengers or opponents, this illogic makes positive action therefore counterproductive. However, other opponents also argue that affirmative action allows impromptu applicants to be rewarded by obtaining employment or education in educational institutions or highly demanding jobs, which inevitably turns into ultimate failure. They're not prepared, they don't have the education or training, they're looking to make money quickly and have an easy way to do it. Many opponents of affirmative action speak out by saying that affirmative action actually lowers the bar and thus rejects those who attempt to achieve excellence based on their own merit and sense of true accomplishment. “In the landmark Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, June 28, 1978. This case placed limits on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities to 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 Univ. of California, Davis, medial School, which had two separate admissions pools, one for standard applicants and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. The school reserved 16 out of 100 places for the latter group” (Santini, 2019). “Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though some minority applicants were admitted with scores significantly lower than his. Bakke argued that judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admission, the use of quotas as rigid as those imposed by the medical school was not. The Supreme Court, however, was split 5-4 in its decision on the case..