Question

Policy of affirmative action arose when?

1) it became apparent that disadvantaged Americans would not attain equal employment opportunities through lawsuits that benefited single individuals only
2) The Supreme Court declared in bakke that the 14th amendment requires government and large firms to hire more women and minorities
3) The Supreme Court ruled that de facto it's discrimination is on waffl it's discrimination is on unlawful
4) private firms decided on their own that a more diverse workforce was actually a more productive and effective workforce
5) supreme Court rendered its adarand v Pena decision in 1995

Answer 1

Affirmative action arose as a way to counter historic discrimination and to foster diversity in the workforce through proactive hiring of underrepresented groups. The policy change was catalyzed by the recognition of the value of diversity and the need for equal opportunities but has faced critiques of reverse discrimination.

Step-by-step explanation:

The policy of affirmative action arose to actively counter patterns of historic discrimination by ensuring that underrepresented groups were given hiring preference. This proactive approach was deemed necessary as it became clear that simply outlawing discriminatory policies was not sufficient to ensure equal employment opportunities. The Supreme Court's landmark 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke barred the use of racial quotas and instead supported affirmative action plans that considered race as one factor among others while making employment decisions. Such policies have led to increased workforce diversity and have been justified by their supporters as a means of compensating for past injustices and leveling the playing field. However, affirmative action has also faced criticism and legal challenges, with some viewing it as reverse discrimination. Federal agencies and some private companies adopted affirmative action not just to foster a more diverse workforce but also in recognize that discrimination was against their interests and in support of a more positively fostered work environment.