Affirmative action involving preferential treatment is an issue that is no longer a stranger to every day Americans as well as the Supreme Court. The implementation of affirmative action often involves giving preferential treatment to a candidate of a specific minority group. When choosing between two applicants, affirmative action would often be implemented by choosing a less qualified candidate from the specific minority group over a more qualified candidate who is not of a member of that group. Although there are various compelling arguments on both sides of the issue, there also lies the controversial question of what the motives for affirmative action should be. My theoretical justifications for the use of affirmative action are only concerned with the judicial foundations on which it is to be based rather than the issues regarding its implementation and potential adverse effects. As far as these various justifications are concerned, affirmative action involving preferential treatment should be practiced solely on the grounds of eliminating discrimination and unequal opportunity, and not based on self-interest, diversity, or the rectification of past injustices.

In conclusion, there are two main areas of discipline in the issue of affirmative action: justification and implementation. As far as justification is concerned, affirmative action involving preferential treatment should be administered solely on the foundation of rectifying the injustices suffered from discrimination and unequal opportunity.

Yet, another major issue revolving affirmative action is the question of where to draw the line once implemented. There would be various answers to this question depending on what the original justifiable foundations for the practice were. Yet, we will often find that there is an advantage to finding an answer to this question when affirmative action is based solely on discrimination and unequal opportunity. When dealing with diversity, there can be difficulty identifying a clear finish line for the practice. The same goes for rectification of past injustices seeing as how there is bound to be much confusion in setting a standard for determining whether a debt has been repaid. However, when dealing with affirmative action based on the grounds of discrimination and equal opportunity, there is a much more clear finish line: when the two injustices no longer exist. The entire program does a great deal to move those from society's lower classes and racial minorities up through its ranks. In theory, this practice ought to help in diminishing both injustices of discrimination and unequal opportunity.

Although expanding affirmative action in order to compensate victims of unequal opportunity is crucial to the idea of justice, this is not to say that race-based affirmative action should be eliminated. Although a black candidate from society’s upper class may not have suffered from unequal opportunity, it is very likely that he or she has been a victim of race-based discrimination. Therefore, preferential treatment ought to be given to those who may have suffered from discrimination but not unequal opportunity and vice versa. Overall, the program should give preferential treatment based on both social class and race/gender. The details of how much preferential treatment a candidate gets for what injustice is a matter of implementation and will not be discussed in detail here.

Another justifiable basis for affirmative action is an attempt to compensate victi

Some topics in this essay:
Consequently Valls’, Supreme Court, Valls Valls, War II, affirmative action, unequal opportunity, preferential treatment, Shelby Steele, Action Affirmative, discrimination unequal, United States’, discrimination unequal opportunity, basis affirmative, basis affirmative action, past injustices, involving preferential treatment, affirmative action involving, treatment candidate, action based, supreme court, involving preferential, action involving preferential,