Affirmative Action

reading:The Shape of the River, Bowen and Bok

Affirmative action questions When did affirmative action in

education emerge? How and why? How common is affirmative action in education today?

Who were the actors in the Michigan cases? What did the Supreme Court hold in June 2003? Why was this so important?

More affirmative action questions What strategy did Michigan adopt

in the cases? What kind of affirmative action did

Bakke allow? What is the definition of affirmative

action? How should we calculate the COST

of affirmative action?

Today’s outline Calculating the costs and benefits Facts about affirmative action Differences across issue areas Rationales for and objections to

affirmative action What Bowen said the book’s

about!

What is affirmative action? occurs when an organization goes

out of its way to make sure that there is no discrimination against people of color white women people with disabilities veterans

What is not affirmative action Non-discrimination Going out of the way not to

discriminate against non-veteran, able-bodied white men

However: documentation of non-discrimination in 1964 CRA encouraged affirmative action and, implicitly, quotas.

Where affirmative action happens Jobs/businesses

how employees are selected and promoted

how government contracts are awarded to bidders

Schools how students are selected in

undergraduate and professional schools

Timeline of “affirmative action” 1961 Kennedy creates Commission

on Equal Employment Opportunity 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits

discrimination 6.1965 Famous Howard University

speech 9.1965 Executive Order 11246

applying to government contractors

Timeline of affirmative action 1969 Nixon goals, timetables 1978 Bakke: race OK, quotas not 1979 Weber 1995 Adarand 1996 Hopwood

Affirmative action chronology CRA 1964 (Federal law) Bakke 1978 (Supreme Court ruling) Hopwood 1996 (TX) Proposition 209 1996 (CA) Initiative 200 1998 (WA) Michigan cases 2003 (Supreme

Court ruling)

Affirmative action chronology CRA 1964 (Federal law) Bakke 1978 (Supreme Court ruling) Hopwood 1996 (TX) Proposition 209 1996 (CA) Initiative 200 1998 (WA) Michigan cases 2003 (Supreme

Court ruling)

Bakke 1978 white male rejected under quota

system Lewis Powell writes for majority interpretation: a “clouded” ruling

outlawing quotas allowing race as a factor

SC hasn’t considered aa in education since

Timing Initially, affirmative action applied

to businesses, not education Diversity a long-standing principle

in education Education the area where

affirmative action is most controversial recently

Frequency of affirmative action About 25% of the American

workforce is governed directly by federal laws on affirmative action

20-30% of colleges use aa (bb p15) Federal law does not support quotas

in hiring or admissions (and did not before the Michigan cases)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment

and education on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin

prohibited discrimination in privately-owned facilities open to the public

outlawed discrimination in federally-funded programs

prohibited discrimination by both private and public employers

Classical definition Executive Order 11246 orders

affirmative action to assure non-discrimination

applies to federal government, federal contractors, construction companies obtaining federal assistance

OFCCP monitors hiring, retention, promotion

LBJ Howard University Speech But freedom is not enough. You do not

wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough to open the gates of opportunity.

Bakke (1978) outlaws racial quotas allows racial and ethnicity to be

considered in admissions decisions

Bakke (1978) outlaws racial quotas allows racial and ethnicity to be

considered in admissions decisions

US. Steelworkers v. Weber(1979) SC rules against white steelworker says employers have an “area of

discretion” to eliminate workplace racial imbalances

City of Richmond v. Croson (1989) Croson sues city when it rejects its

low bid because it didn’t provide for minority business sub-contracting

Richmond’s aa program for awarding minority contracts found unconstitutional

Adarand v. Peña (1995) “all racial classifications” are

“inherently suspect” restricts but doesn’t strike down

completely affirmative action raises the standard of review for

racial classifications

Hopwood 1996 Race can never be used in law

school admissions

Proposition 209 (CCRI) The state shall not discriminate

against, or grant preferential treatment to, any

individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the

operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

What Michigan did/does

What is the cost? Affirmative action gives minority

applicants a significant boost This boost comes at minimal costs

to white applicants when whites greatly outnumber blacks in the applicant pool

The crucial factor in determining white disadvantage is the racial ratio in the applicant pool

Fairness Distinctions Actual cost to declined applicant

versus the cost of being considered under a process perceived as unfair

Defenses of Affirmative Action Righting past wrongs (redress)

discrimination slavery

Increasing minority representation focussed on future, participants in all

walks of life Diversity

Do people like it?

White people like affirmative action less than other people

Level of opposition depends on q. wording in surveys

Do people like it? POPULAR Diversity “special efforts”

to increase “opportunity”

UNPOPULAR Anything

smacking of coercion or govt intervention

The idea that aa very widespread

Takeaway points from “River” a.a. doesn’t harm minorities a.a.’s ed benefits affirmed (see UM

website) substantial benefits in terms of

measured consequences low costs! score gaps remain and are likely

to for awhile

What was upheld in 2003 Court affirms “diversity” – Powell’s

idea from Bakke 14th amendment rationale perhaps

expanded as Court focuses broadly on social consequences of aa

Discussion questions about aa Would the SC have ruled as it did

if not for the war in Iraq?