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.

So the question remains: What is a justifiable basis for affirmative action? The answer: current discrimination and unequal opportunity. Our constitution states that all members of our society deserve protection from race/gender-based discrimination as well as equal opportunity. Let us take a closer look at affirmative action as an attempt to compensate victims of discrimination. This type of practice would no doubt qualify as race/gender-based affirmative action. As far as American society has advanced on issues such as racial and sexual discrimination, the two are still very much present in our modern society. A commonly sited example consists of a study in which applications of employment are mailed out on the behalf of non-existent equally qualified applicants. Of the applications mailed out, those with traditionally ethnic names are responded to far less than those with traditionally white names. Given that this and various other fields of study have testified to the existence of discrimination, the purpose of race/gender-based affirmative action would be an attempt to level the uneven playing fields. In general, when dealing with two qualified candidates of different race/gender, preferential treatment would be given to the candidate belonging to a racial/gender group that suffers from discrimination. This preference is not awarded primarily because of the candidates skin color or gender as can be the case when using diversity and self-interest as foundations for the practice, but rather in an attempt to reverse any discriminations, conscious or not, that the candidate has been exposed to in the past that might have somehow altered his/her opportunities to advance him/herself.

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 suf

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,