Even in 1969 affirmative action was nothing new, in 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled on Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas the African American community had legal restraints removed that had long kept them at a distinct disadvantage. Minorities had long been imposed to prejudice, especially from the greater white population. However the Brown decision failed to cease many white advantages and professional supremacies; “it merely allowed Blacks to enter the arena of competition,” (Greenberg 300).” The Brown decision only cracked the door of segregation of public facilities it did nothing to help minorities in the workplace. After the United States Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 min

Often, affirmative action is considered to be a cure for the disease of racial discrimination but this is not the case. “Affirmative action is a temporary, partial, and flawed remedy for past and continuing discrimination against historically marginalized and disenfranchised groups in American society,” (Hacker 85). A common complaint surrounding affirmative action policies aimed at serving minorities, specifically African Americans, is that they violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution by depriving white males of equal protection under the law (Greenberg 100). Many of those against affirmative action policies claim that these programs skew what is already an unambiguous area and confer preferred treatment upon minorities because of the color of their skin. However, actions taken so far can only be considered to be reverse discrimination which, instead of producing equality in the workplace or university setting, creates a tension charged environment. For example, the Northern Natural Gas Company of Omaha, Nebraska, was forced by the government in 1977 to release sixty-five white male workers to make room for minority employees (Nebraska Advisory Committee 40). What did these men do to bring about their termination? Were they the source of any discriminatory policies? The only crime that they were guilty of was being white. Programs that force employers to fire valuable employees or create new positions just for minority groups are not just bad for business, they are just as unjust as the discrimination that created this situation in the first place. Is it fair to trade discrimination of one group for another? Do two wrongs make a right? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is not cut and dry.

orities were no longer prohibited from the use of public facilities and job discrimination was no longer legally sanctioned. It became apparent that certain business traditions, such as seniority status and aptitude tests, prevented total equality in employment. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a major step in reducing de jure or law based discrimination but was unable to cease deep seeded de facto or actual discrimination in American society. The Civil Rights Act did not require employers to prove that any discriminatory policies were or were not used in the hiring of personnel, “Instead, the burden of proof was on the woman or minority group member who had been denied a particular job,” (Patterson 161). After enough workplace settlements affirmative action was created to extend the effort of equality in the workplace and school. On September 24, 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order #11246 at Howard University that required federal contractors “to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed. . . without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin,” (Civil Rights). President Johnson also called for other legislation that would end racial barriers to voting, the result was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which forbid discrimination in voting and registration of (Patterson 142, 159).

James Robb, author of the study, “Affirmative Action for Immigrants: The Entitlement Nobody Wanted,” provides an example of how immigrants are usin

Some topics in this essay:
Advisory Committee, Rights Act, African Americans, Asians United, University California, Control Act, Twenty Plan”, African American, Amendment Constitution, Texas School, affirmative action, action programs, affirmative action programs, civil rights, rights act, racial ethnic, affirmative action policies, action policies, treatment minorities, civil rights act, university texas, supreme court, public facilities, rights act 1964, 1969 affirmative action,