Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class ...
Business ethics operates on the premise, for example, that the ethical operation of a private business is possible—those who dispute that premise, such as libertarian socialists (who contend that "business ethics" is an oxymoron) do so by definition outside of the domain of business ethics proper.
[10] [11] In the United States, affirmative action is controversial [12] and public opinion on the subject is divided. Supporters of affirmative action argue that it promotes substantive equality for group outcomes and representation for groups, which are socio-economically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression.
The decision was the only legally challenged affirmative-action policy to survive the courts. However, this ruling has led to confusion among universities and lower courts alike regarding the status of affirmative action across the nation. In 2012, Fisher v. University of Texas reached the Supreme Court. [20]
Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, was an executive order of the Article II branch of the United States federal government, in place from 1965 to 2025, specifying non-discriminatory practices and affirmative action in federal government hiring and employment.
Ellerth is most referenced for its two-part affirmative defense for supervisor sexual harassment. In the case, a supervisor is defined by the ability to take a Tangible Employment Action. A Tangible Employment Action makes the company vicariously liable because the agency relationship was used to take the action.
The 60-year-old executive order had merely required federal contractors to implement affirmative action plans to engage with the government. [11] [12] Since the presidential directive aimed to ensure equal employment opportunity, several media outlets briefly and mistakenly reported it as a repeal of the 1972 Act. [13]
The ruling determined in Bakke acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.” [1] Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and Bakke marks the origination of affirmative action debates. [1]