Do you think Affirmative Action has outlived its purpose? Why or why not?

Option One:

Below is a link to an article discussing Affirmative Action and an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether it will be handed to the States or remain a federal policy. The court is about to make a decision that could result in another “Landmark” case by reversing a previous decision. Historically, the court rarely reverses a decision. For example, in 1896 in the ruling for “Plessy vs. Ferguson” they ruled the doctrine “Separate but Equal” as constitutional and that opened the door to the Southern States immediately taking advantage of the loophole and implementing the racist Jim Crow laws. It took 58 years before they finally overturned it and reversed their decision in another “Landmark” case “Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education” in 1954.

Soon another decision and possible reversal is in the making. Below is the article. Read it and then use the information below to comment with your thoughts and opinions:

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-affirmative-action-can-be-left-up-to-state-voters-024502165.html

Affirmative Action plans and guidelines have been a source of controversy and the subject of heated discussions regarding whether they have outlived their original intent and purpose. This concept includes many areas and one is equal pay for equal work and the “glass ceiling” addressing equality in promotions, particularly for females. A common argument by opponents is “reverse discrimination.” Do you think that is a valid argument? Why or why not? Do you think Affirmative Action has outlived its purpose? Why or why not?

Note: Please stay on topic and don’t venture off into political discussions or personal attacks of opinions of classmates that might be different than your own. Keep in mind that students are encouraged to form opinions and share experiences regardless of whether or not they are my opinion or opposite and I would never, and have never, penalized a student for disagreeing with my opinions so feel free to share yours. All I ask is that you support your points with a brief explanation of why you feel one way or the other.

Option Two: Recent genetics research on leadership by Dr. Richard Avey suggests about 30% of leadership is born (genetic), 30% is made in the formative years (young in life), and about 10% of leadership is “made” throughout one’s life. A quote by Warren Bennis somewhat supports Dr. Ivey when he said “more leaders have been made by accident, circumstance, sheer grit, or will than have been made by all the leadership courses put together.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why? If you agree, how would you design a leadership course differently?