The affirmative action debate is a debate about the conflict of rights. This conflict of rights makes a clear decision on the subject almost impossible. However, there can be arguments for and against affirmative action. Proponents of affirmative action argue that racism and sexism can only be defeated by considering race and gender in the search for a solution. They believe that giving everyone equal rights is not enough to overcome the burden. Therefore, for all to be truly equal, certain people must have certain advantages. So, during hiring, college admission and other related things, companies or colleges 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 agreeing to level the playing field is often referred to as equality of outcome. Lately, the role of affirmative action is to try to diversify the job 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 results. Equal opportunity means that everyone should have the same rights and opportunities from the start, and what each person does with these rights is up to them. People who disagree with affirmative action often argue that while it is wrong to take away rights on the basis of race or gender, it would also be wrong to grant additional rights or preference to someone. 'one on the basis of their race or gender. This reverse discrimination seems to go against the principle on which it was founded. Naturally, the Supreme Court has waded into this controversy...... middle of paper ......tion would not support a quota system. There are The Supreme Court has issued mixed decisions, so it is still difficult to say who is right. In 1978, 1989 and 1993, the Supreme Court ruled against a workplace quota system. However, in 1980 and 1990 the court upheld a workplace quota system. So even the Supreme Court itself cannot decide what position to take on quotas and affirmative action. There seems to be some pattern in their decisions. If a quota system is created, it will be strictly controlled. 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 what about those who do and do not support affirmative action? It appears that each case is decided based on the situation and there is little or no precedence used in new cases..