Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Supreme Court rules against race-based admissions policies, but not helping students who suffered bias or hardships.
The modern history begins in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy in 1961 issued Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
Affirmative action in New Zealand is most often done indirecttly by encouraging those in groups favored by affirmative action to get jobs in sectors they are underrepresented in. [137] Diversity Awards NZ is an organization in New Zealand whose goal is to " celebrate excellence in workplace diversity, equity and inclusion."
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual ...
Check out CNN’s Affirmative Action Fast Facts for some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable Supreme Court court cases.
The court considered two affirmative action cases, one against Harvard University and the other against the University of North Carolina, and announced its 6-3 and 6-2 rulings, respectively, on ...
Executive Order 10925, signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961, required government contractors, except in special circumstances, to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".
The Coate–Loury model of affirmative action was developed by Stephen Coate and Glenn Loury in 1993. [1] The model seeks to answer the question of whether, by mandating expanded opportunities for minorities in the present, these policies are rendered unnecessary in the future. Affirmative action may lead to one of two outcomes: