Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases and has been questioned as to its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in student admission.  Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have generally been underrepresented and generally have weaker living conditions. Some states, such as the California Civil Rights Initiative, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, and Washington 200, have passed constitutional amendments prohibiting public institutions, including public schools, from affirmative action in their respective states. In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that „states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in government decisions.“ By that time, eight states, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Washington and California, had already banned affirmative action.  Conservative activists have claimed that colleges tacitly use illegal quotas to discriminate against people of Asian, Jewish, and Caucasian descent and have launched numerous lawsuits to arrest them.  The implementation and continuation of the practice of affirmative action policy has garnered both strong support and strong criticism. The group is represented free of charge by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based conservative advocacy group that has sharply criticized affirmative action. Theoretically, this bias could then be explained by a form of algorithmic positive action, . B as the lowering of the threshold for minority applications. The wisdom of a scribe comes through his leisure time; and those who are less in action will receive wisdom.
People of Maori or Polynesian origin often have better access to university courses or have scholarships specifically designed for them.  Affirmative action is provided for in section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990.  Affirmative action was initiated by the administration of President Lyndon Johnson (1963-69) to improve opportunities for African Americans, while civil rights legislation dismantled the legal basis for discrimination. The federal government began implementing affirmative action guidelines under the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an Executive Order in Council in 1965. Companies that received federal funding were not allowed to use aptitude tests and other criteria that tended to discriminate against African Americans. Affirmative action programs were overseen by the Federal Contractor Compliance Office and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As a result, affirmative action was extended to women and Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities, and extended to colleges and universities, as well as state and federal agencies. On September 24, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which replaced Executive Order 10925 and reaffirmed the federal government`s commitment to „promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive and ongoing agenda in every executive department and agency.“  Affirmative action was extended to women by Presidential Decree 11375, which amended Executive Decree 11246 on October 13, 1967, by adding „gender“ to the list of protected categories. In the United States, the original purpose of affirmative action was to pressure institutions to comply with the anti-discrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   The Civil Rights Acts do not apply to discrimination based on veteran status, disability or age 40 and over. These groups may be protected from discrimination under various laws. With the introduction of affirmative action, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) in South Africa continued to increase. The EEB was not a moral initiative to redress the injustices of the past, but to promote growth and strategies to realize a country`s full potential. The idea targeted the weakest link in the economy, namely inequality, which would contribute to the development of the economy. This is reflected in the statement of the Ministry of Trade and Industry: „As such, this strategy emphasizes a BEE process associated with growth, development and business development, and not just the redistribution of existing wealth.“   The similarities between bee and affirmative action are obvious; However, there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality than on removing the wealth of skilled white workers.  The Canada Employment Equity Act requires employers in government-regulated industries to favour four specific groups: women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities. Less than one-third of Canadian universities offer additional admission requirements for students of Indigenous origin. Some provinces and territories also have an affirmative action policy. For example, in the Northwest Territories, in northern Canada, Aboriginal people are preferred for work and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-Aboriginal people who were born in the Northwest Territories or who spent half their lives there are considered P2, as are women and persons with disabilities.  In some countries that have racial equality laws, affirmative action is made illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach to equal treatment is sometimes referred to as „colorblind“ in the hope that it will be effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination. Affirmative action is an affirmative action programme implemented with conviction and effort to overcome the current impact of past practices, policies or barriers to equal employment opportunities and to achieve the full and equitable participation of women, minorities and persons with disabilities who are not sufficiently used due to the availability of labour. A 2009 survey by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found that 65 percent of U.S. voters opposed the use of affirmative action by homosexuals, with 27 percent saying they supported it.  After eight years of litigation, Coors finally committed to affirmative action and targeted recruitment and training programs for women and minorities. Some opponents of affirmative action argue that it is a form of reverse discrimination, that any attempt to remedy discrimination through affirmative action is wrong because it is another form of discrimination.  Some critics argue that court cases such as Fisher v. The University of Texas, which believed colleges had some discretion in admission decisions to consider race, shows how discrimination occurs in the name of affirmative action.  Affirmative action is a highly controversial topic and often leads to heated debates between those who support it and those who feel it does not benefit society. But is there a way to quantify how people feel and how it works? A 2017 study on temporary federal regulation of affirmative action in the United States estimated that regulation „increases the black share of employees over time: within 5 years of an institution`s first regulation, the black percentage of employees increases by an average of 0.8 percentage points.
Strikingly, even after the deregulation of an institution, the share of blacks continues to grow at a similar rate. [The author] argues that this persistence is partly motivated by positive actions that encourage employers to improve their methods of selecting potential employees.  Another criticism of affirmative action is that it can reduce incentives for preferred and non-preferred actions to do their best. Recipients of supports may conclude that there is no need to work so hard, and those who do not benefit from it may find hard work in vain.  Gail Heriot, a law professor at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, presented evidence to support the theory of inadequacy in an August 24, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal. Richard Sander concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black lawyers than if there had been no positive action.  The article also states that Blacks are more likely to drop out of law school due to a lag and fail bar exams.  The Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and its implementation in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, any discrimination, quota or favouritism based on sex, race and ethnic origin and other „protected characteristics“ is by default illegal in education, employment, business transactions, in a private club or association and in the use of public services, although there are exceptions where: „Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to: a candidate or worker with a protected characteristic (e.g.B. race, b. sex or age) in the context of recruitment or promotion is more favourable than a person without that characteristic who is also qualified for the position […].