Research Paper on:
Constitutionality of Affirmative Action

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
groups have been instrumental in taking advantage of a system that was supposed to offset racial discrimination, not make it worse from the other direction. "Schools and companies alike  set double standards on who they will accept and who they will reject, depending on race" (Chang, 1997, p. PG). Critics of affirmative action contend that the entire program  was not only misguided from the start but is unconstitutional, as well. According to Dworkin (1977), the very groups targeted to benefit from affirmative action are no longer the  ones that need protection; instead, the direction has changed so much that white males are now looked upon as minorities in the educational sense.  There is no question that the original intent of affirmative action was to empower minority groups with the legal support they needed as a means by which to overcome  educational shortcomings; however, history has clearly proven the fact that affirmative actions quest to equalize those groups has instead allowed for legalized prejudicial practices against white males (Dworkin, 1977).  "...People have come out against affirmative action in the US, even among the minority groups it was originally designed to help. This is because it has helped perpetuate prejudices  against those minorities abilities, creating the phenomenon of tokenism" (Hattis Rolef, 1994, p. PG). Studies have shown that just because a minority has gained entrance into university over that  of a white applicant, the opportunity for educational advancement is not fully appreciated. When affirmative action was first introduced, its primary purpose was  to give minority groups the same -- or better -- chance as their white counterparts. What that meant for the academic world was if two entrance candidates were equally