Time is said to bring forth change, but sometimes time needs a small nudge in the right direction for that change to be morally and ethically correct. . Time has had many forceful pushes in the wrong direction, an example of that is slavery. Though out the histories of many countries there is slave labor found in some form. In Spanish history, you can find slaves working in Caribbean sugar plantations. In African history you might find tribes that sold some of their own members to slave traders. The United States’ history with slaves has established a root into the United States’ present. In today’s society, slavery is not legal in the United States, but it has developed an offspring that has the name of racism. Racism has partnered up with affirmative action, and together they are seeking to undermine the livelihood of minorities. Affirmative action is defined as “a way of making amends for, or eradicating, discrimination based on race ethnicity, and gender.” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 451).
Naturally all humans have rights, and when these rights are disregarded it is considered to be breaking the natural law. The Natural law theory is defined as “the morally right action is the one that follows the dictates of nature, ” by our book (Vaughn, 2010, p. 69). Before humans started thinking about racial superiority, there were just equal beings. This needs to be implemented into the world’s society once more. But in order to fully evaluate this issue I would have to use Kant’s theory “…the morally right action is the one done in accordance with the categorical imperative.”(Vaughn, 2010, p. 68). What is right is not always what we want to do, but it should be done.
On October 15th, 2013, a court case under the name of, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was brought to the Supreme Court Justices. This case arose from Michigan’s Proposal 2, which prohibits the special treatment of students based on race and other things, which was on a ballot that voters voted in support of the proposal. It was sent to the Supreme Court to see if the proposal was considered to be unconstitutional. The decision was “Reversed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on April 22, 2014.” (Kennedy, 2014). There were many rebuttals to this in the communities, but the most important opinion that was involved with this case was the one from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
New York City’s Raúl A. Reyes, columnist and attorney, quotes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion on the court case of , “…(Michigan’s Proposal 2 has already resulted in a 25 percent drop in minority representation in the state’s colleges and universities).” (Reyes, 2014).This is a large number of minority students that are not going to be admitted into Michigan’s ‘selective’ colleges. Justice Sotomayor also understands that this decision might be influential to other stats and it, “will limit the ability of African-American and Latino students to access selective colleges.” (Reyes,...