apos;s workforce should be "...reflective of the nation's diversity" and called for fairness in terms of women and minorities' opportunities and federal hiring practices.
             IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCHING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION:
             First of all, a review of American history – even a cursory glance – brings to light the fact that the U.S. has not had an exemplary track record when it comes to civil rights, social justice, fairness, and equal opportunity when it comes to participation in this democracy. The years following the Civil War were not – in most cases – a panacea for freed slaves, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of soldiers from the south and north who died during that ugly conflict. And women did not have the right to vote until 1920, a hundred and forty-four year after the Declaration of Independence. So, there is a history of discrimination and a legacy of unfairness in America. Inclusiveness has not been the rule when it comes to African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, many immigrants and women, as well. Something needed to be done.
             And though it seemed reasonable (in hindsight) that the federal government should have attempted to make right what has been wrong in society, since the launching of affirmative action programs in the 1970s, the strategy has been controversial. It has been a lightning rod for conservatives and far right wing reactionaries. "Reverse discrimination" has been the battle cry for groups who feel pushed aside by the fact of minorities and women getting opportunities that have the effect of leaving out (allegedly discriminating against) Caucasians.
             For example, in California (1978), Allan Bakke (white) was applying for admission to medical school at the University of California (Berkeley). He was denied admission "to make room for less qualified minority applicants" (Garrison-Wade, 2004). His was the first case to question aff...