Advanced Technology Office (ATO)
Office responsible for the integration of new and future technology into military systems.
In 1957, Congress created the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) in response to the Soviet Union’s
launching of Sputnik I. The Advanced Technology Office
(ATO), functioning under the authority and funding of
DARPA, conducts research and integrates advanced technology into existing U.S. military systems. Researchers place special emphasis on maritime, communications, special
operations, command and control, and information assurance and survivability mission areas. The goal of the ATO
remains the most cost-effective use of technology to assist all
branches of the military to fight against existing and future
threats by outmaneuvering, gathering more intelligence, and
reacting more quickly than the adversary. Current ATO programs include the development of artificial intelligence
through the use of robotics, sensors, and satellites. Projects
include Airborne Communications Node; Antipersonnel
Landmine Alternative; Buoyant Cable Array Antenna; Center
of Excellence for Research in Oceanographic Sciences; Future
Combat Systems (FCS) Command and Control; FCS
Communications; Metal Storm; Robust Passive Sonar;
Submarine Payloads and Sensors Program; Tactical Mobile
Robotics; Tactical Sensors; Undersea Littoral Warfare: Netted
Search, Acquisition and Targeting (Net SAT); and
Underwater Fighter (LOKI). Additional programs such as the
Self-Healing Minefield system use the most advanced technology to prevent the breaching of minefields by the enemy.
Instead of creating a static minefield, the program creates a
dynamic minefield with the intelligent capability of physically reorganizing mines to prevent breaches by opposition
forces. Government funding of the research has produced
benefits for the American public as well because consumer
applications for the technology exist and because ATO
researchers continue to use high-tech devices developed by
the private sector, which receives public funding for its
research and development.
—Cynthia Clark Northrup
References
Keever, David B., ed. Interactive Management and Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency. Fairfax, VA: Institute
for Advanced Study in the Integrative Sciences, George
Mason University, 1990.
See also Volume 1: Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency.
AEA
See American Economic Association.
AFDC
See Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Affirmative Action
Legislative attempt to eliminate economic discrimination by
ensuring that blacks and other minorities play “on a level
playing field.”
Executive Order 10925, issued by President John F.
Kennedy, recognized the need for affirmative action. After
Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress. On September
24, 1965, Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which provided for the enforcement of affirmative action, primarily in
education and jobs. The federal government attempted to
ensure that blacks and other minority groups played on a level
playing field when it came to promotions, salaries, school
admissions, scholarship, financial assistance, and participation in federal contracts. Although designed as a temporary
measure, affirmative action assumed permanency after the
introduction of quotas. (Racial quotas required employers to
hire a percentage of their workers on the basis of race.)
Affirmative action’s goals were met better in the educational realm than in the workplace. Colleges and universities
reserved a specific number of positions for disadvantaged
minorities, including women, under the quota system. As a
result, some white males who qualified received rejection
notices. In 1978, Allan Bakke sued the University of
California for accepting less-qualified students to its medical
school while refusing to accept him for two years in a row. In
2 ADCthe landmark case Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that the inflexible quota system violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act because it engaged in reverse discrimination. In 1986, the
Court heard a second case, Wygant v. Jackson Board of
Education, in which the justices ruled that white men could
not be dismissed to make room for women or minority
employees. The following year the Court heard United States
v. Paradise and issued an opinion that allowed for a one-forone promotion requirement—for every white male promoted, one minority employee must be promoted.
The debate over affirmative action continued through the
1990s. The federal government initiated programs that would
economically support small businesses owned by women or
minority groups. Employers attempted to achieve a reasonable diversity among employees without the rigid quotas.
Congress even tried, unsuccessfully, to pass an affirmative
action amendment to the Constitution, but the measure was
defeated in 1979 by a 171 to 249 margin. Affirmative action
has achieved some limited success—more women and
minorities have reached senior-level positions, and student
bodies in universities and colleges have become diverse.
Currently the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing two cases
concerning affirmative action—Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter
v. Bollinger—involving admission requirements or quotas
used by the University of Michigan law school. The outcome
of these cases will decide the future direction of affirmative
action.