The controversy over the effectiveness of affirmative action is often based on the idea of ​​class inequality. However, the Affirmative Action law prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in decisions regarding hiring, firing, compensation, or other forms of employment. 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 tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, you may not base a hiring decision, in whole or in part, on a person's race or sex. We have contradictory laws made to abolish prejudice and yet we are committed to creating it. Nine states have already banned Affirmation Action due to the inequality 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 starting to realize that in addition to the pros there are many cons of affirmative action. Examples of this would be: he promotes reverse decimation, he still reinforces stereotypes, diversity can be as bad as it is good, he changes standards of accountability, he diminishes the achievements of minority groups, and his personal biases will always disappear. As for the argument of being against Affirmation Action, let's first look at racial Affirmative Action. We see 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 ​​affirmative action based solely on class, meaning that poor or financially disadvantaged Americans 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 benefits to middle- and upper-class people of color. May 19, 1986 Wygant V. Jackson Board of Education: This case challenged a school hog's policy of protecting minority employees by firing non-minority teachers first, even though the non-minority employees had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the school board, holding that the harms suffered by affected non-minority people could not justify the benefits to minorities: “We have previously expressed concern about the burden that a preferential dismissal system imposes on innocent individuals . In cases involving valid hiring targets, the burden placed on innocent individuals is widespread to a considerable extent in society at large. While hiring targets may burden some innocent individuals, they simply do not impose the same kind of harm that layoffs do. The denial of a future job opportunity is not as intrusive as the loss of an existing job” (Santini, 2019). So in this case the Supreme Court ruled that you can't fire someone who isn't a minority just because that color, race, or gender category doesn't fit into the category, but they argue that "the denial of a future job opportunity is not that intrusive like lossof an existing job,” how can it be that they can predict the future or declare that a person of no age should not be given a job to a minority who perhaps have difficulties regardless of race or gender, but perhaps they also live in an economically lower class. Then all citizens of the lower classes should be placed in the category of special privileges, regardless of their race, color, sex, religion. How can we draw boundaries when lines in the sand are easily swept away by waves of poverty that affect all members of society regardless of orientation or skin color? Affirmative action sees only color and gender and not gender. equality of equal opportunities through hard work and determination. He only sees the less fortunate who may not be willing to work harder for something because they believe they have the birthright 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 affects all people in society: do we want a government that wants us to be down, so we have to rely on them to get us back 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 challengers of affirmative action call it reverse discrimination, saying that “affirmative action requires the very discrimination it is trying to eliminate.” So, according to these challengers or opponents, this illogicality makes affirmative action therefore counterproductive. However, other opponents also claim that affirmative action causes improvised applicants to be rewarded by obtaining employment or education in educational institutions or highly demanding jobs that inevitably turn into eventual failure. They're not prepared, they don't have the education or training, they're trying to make a quick buck, and they have an easy means to do it. Many opponents of affirmative action express themselves by saying that affirmative action actually lowers the bar, and therefore rejects those who attempt excellence based on their own merits and sense of real accomplishment. “In the landmark Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, June 28, 1978. This case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the majority's affirmative action rights was unjust 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 has reserved 16 or 100 places for the latter group” (Santini, 2019). “Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though minority applicants with scores significantly lower than his were admitted. Bakke argued that judging him based on 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 admissions, the use of strict quotas like those in medical school was not. The Supreme Court, however, split 5-4 in its decision in the Bakke case and addressed only a handful of the many complex questions that have arisen regarding affirmative action. There are other challengers who also argue that affirmative action has unintended side effects and that it fails to achieve its goals, they argue that it hinders resolution, replacing..