The affirmative action debate is a conflict of rights debate. This conflict of rights makes a clear decision or decision on the matter almost unattainable. However, arguments can be made both for and against affirmative action. Affirmative action advocates argue that racism and sexism can only be overcome by taking race and gender into account in finding a solution. They think that giving everyone equal rights is not enough to overcome the burden. Therefore, for everyone to be truly equal, some people must be afforded certain benefits. So, in hiring, college acceptance, and other related things, companies or universities must hire or accept applicants on the basis of gender and race. In doing so they should give preference to blacks, women and other minorities. This preference in hiring and acceptance to level the playing field is often called outcome equality. Lately, affirmative action has taken on the role of trying to diversify the workplace and college environment. On the other hand, there are people who do not believe in or support the idea of ​​affirmative action. They believe in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. Equal opportunities means that everyone should have the same rights and opportunities from the beginning, and what the individual does with those rights is up to him. People who disagree with affirmative action often argue that if it is wrong to take away rights on the basis of race or sex, then it would also be wrong to give extra rights or preferences to someone on the basis of race or sex. This reverse discrimination seems to go against the principle on which it was founded. Of course, the Supreme Court has been involved in this controversy... middle of paper... would not support a quota system. There have been conflicting rulings in the Supreme Court, so it's still hard to say which side is right. In 1978, 1989 and 1993 the Supreme Court ruled against the workplace quota system. However, in 1980 and 1990, the Court upheld the workplace quota system. So not even the Supreme Court itself can decide what position to take on quotas and affirmative action. There seems to be a pattern to their rulings. If a quota system is created, it will be carefully examined. To decide whether the quota system is legal in each case, they must first demonstrate that the system is necessary and that discrimination has occurred. So where do you stand those who do and do not support affirmative action? It appears that each case is decided on a situational basis and that there is little to no precedence used in new cases.