For more than two decades, affirmative action has been under continual assault. In courts, legislature and the media, opponents have deprecated it as an unprincipled program of racial and gender preferences that threaten basic American values of fairness, equality, and democratic opportunity.
In short, it is neither fair nor functional in its distribution of prospect for admission to higher education, entry-level hiring, and job promotion. The prohibiting experienced by women and people of a different color, race, and originality is especially revealing of larger patterns. The race and gender based prohibiting that is the object of current affirmative action policies remain the most noticeable examples of prejudice in apparently impartial selection processes. Offensive in themselves, these, prohibiting also signal the insufficient of traditional methods of selection for everyone, and the need to rethink how we assign educational and employment opportunities.
Affirmative action needs to focus on economics rather than race. A richer person in society doesn't need a leg up; the poor do, whether they are black, white, or purple. " Doe and others in similar situation advance two basic claims: first, that they have more value than benefices of affirmative action; and second, that as a matter of fairness this is entitled to the position for which they applied. Consider these claims in return. The idea of value can be interpreted in a variety of ways: for an example, as a matter of desert (because they were next inline, based on established criteria of selection, they deserve the position), or as earned recognition (when an individual has worked hard and succeeded, he or she deserves recognition, praise and/or reward (Sturm, Guinier 2001)." .
But, most essentially, arguments about merit are functional: a person merits a job if he or she has, to especially high degree, the qualities needed to fulfill the job requirements.