AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE LAW

H. Findley, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram
{"title":"AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE LAW","authors":"H. Findley, R. Wheatley, Earl E. Ingram","doi":"10.2190/KE8X-J7E8-RWD5-XMVQ","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a review article on the complex and often misunderstood topic of affirmative action. This article reviews the origin of affirmative action, the nature of the plans, and the surrounding legal network. A subsequent article will address contemporary problems and issues. Affirmative action has been with us for nearly 40 years. Interestingly, it was initially intended to be a temporary measure to redress past discriminatory practices [1]. However, like many government programs, it seems to have become a permanent fixture of public policy. But periodically, the nation revisits and debates the value of this divisive issue. This is just such a period, as affirmative action is once again near the foreground of the nation’s conscience, at least partially due to the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan’s controversial affirmative action plans (AAPs). In June 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Law School’s AAP and struck down its undergraduate AAP [2, 3]. The public interest and furore created by these decisions provides an opportunity to reexamine the legal principles that directly affect at least 190,000 establishments employing more than 22,000,000 workers [4]. This reexamination is of particular importance, since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion as to the definition and practice of affirmative action. Many wrongly believe that affirmative action involves only hiring quotas","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2190/KE8X-J7E8-RWD5-XMVQ","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a review article on the complex and often misunderstood topic of affirmative action. This article reviews the origin of affirmative action, the nature of the plans, and the surrounding legal network. A subsequent article will address contemporary problems and issues. Affirmative action has been with us for nearly 40 years. Interestingly, it was initially intended to be a temporary measure to redress past discriminatory practices [1]. However, like many government programs, it seems to have become a permanent fixture of public policy. But periodically, the nation revisits and debates the value of this divisive issue. This is just such a period, as affirmative action is once again near the foreground of the nation’s conscience, at least partially due to the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan’s controversial affirmative action plans (AAPs). In June 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Law School’s AAP and struck down its undergraduate AAP [2, 3]. The public interest and furore created by these decisions provides an opportunity to reexamine the legal principles that directly affect at least 190,000 establishments employing more than 22,000,000 workers [4]. This reexamination is of particular importance, since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion as to the definition and practice of affirmative action. Many wrongly believe that affirmative action involves only hiring quotas
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平权行动:法律
这是一篇关于平权行动这个复杂且经常被误解的话题的评论文章。本文回顾了平权行动的起源、计划的性质以及周围的法律网络。随后的一篇文章将讨论当代的问题和问题。平权法案已经实施了近40年。有趣的是,它最初的目的是作为纠正过去歧视性做法的临时措施[1]。然而,像许多政府计划一样,它似乎已经成为公共政策的永久固定装置。但是,这个国家会周期性地重新审视和辩论这个引起分歧的问题的价值。这正是这样一个时期,因为平权行动再次接近国家良知的前景,至少部分原因是最近最高法院就密歇根大学有争议的平权行动计划(AAPs)做出的裁决。2003年6月,最高法院支持密歇根法学院的AAP,并推翻了其本科生的AAP[2,3]。这些决定引发的公众利益和愤怒,为重新审视直接影响到至少19万家企业的法律原则提供了机会,这些企业雇佣了超过2200万名工人[4]。这种重新审查特别重要,因为对于平权行动的定义和实践存在着大量的误解和混乱。许多人错误地认为,平权法案只涉及招聘配额
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Navigating the Land Mines of the Family and Medical Leave Act Dress and Grooming Standards: How Legal are They? EQUAL PAY ACT CASES IN HIGHER EDUCATION Disparate Impact Discrimination and the ADEA: Coming of Age Disciplining Employees for Free Speech, Whistle Blowing, and Political Activities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1