Affirmative action refers to federal requirements for employers that are
made to protect minorities and women from discrimination (being
treated differently) and to increase minority representation in the workforce. Although few people would deny its beneficial effects in bringing
opportunities to more minorities and women, affirmative action has
been highly controversial since it came into being in the mid-1960s.
Established in two acts
Affirmative action began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly
Title VII of the act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate
against anyone on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and required them to provide equal employment opportunities for
everyone. It soon became apparent that Title VII, simply by prohibiting
present-day discrimination, could not make up for the continuing effects
of past discrimination. Many people argued that members of minority
groups, having been the victims of discrimination for many generations,
had often been deprived of the education, experience, and connections
of those who had never been the target of discrimination.
To address this disparity, in 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson
(1908–1973; served 1963–69) initiated affirmative action when he
signed Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to
“take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that
employees are treated … without regard to their race, color, religion, or
national origin.” The overall goal was to bring groups that had been discriminated against in the past into the workforce at a more rapid rate
than natural. Employers were required to compare the percentage of minorities in their present labor force with the percentage of minorities in
the general population. If the employers identified situations in which
minorities were underrepresented in their company, they were to file
written plans that included goals, timetables, and strategies to correct the
situation.
Certain affirmative action hiring processes were not allowed. Ruling
in Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971), the Supreme Court allowed
affirmative action recruiting practices that were designed to increase the
pool of female and minority applicants but prohibited quotas—numerical goals for the hiring of women and minorities.
Growing restrictions
During the 1970s and 1980s, as jobs became more scarce in the United
States, opposition to affirmative action increased. Opponents felt that
when an individual belonging to a minority was hired under affirmative
action, someone else, probably a white male, was disqualified. In 1977,
the Supreme Court took up a case that addressed this kind of “reverse
discrimination,” or discrimination against someone from the majority.
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, white applicants who had been rejected from the University of California-Davis Medical
School argued that the school had discriminated against them to fill a
minority quota. The Supreme Court struck down the university’s racialquota admissions system but upheld the basis of affirmative action, ruling that it was acceptable to take race into account as a positive factor in
admissions as a way to create a diverse student body.
In 1994, the Republican Party became the majority party in the U.S.
Congress and promised to curb or end affirmative action programs. At the
same time, California governor Pete Wilson (1933–) began tearing down
his state’s affirmative action structure, beginning with admissions and hiring procedures at the University of California. Governors in other states
soon announced their own renunciation of affirmative action programs.
In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Peña. Adarand, a Colorado highway guardrail company owned by a white male, filed the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a federal program designed to favor minority businesses
when awarding contracts. The Court ruled that federal affirmative action
programs must be tested, calling for “strict scrutiny” in determining
whether discrimination existed before using a federal affirmative action
program. The ruling greatly restricted affirmative action practices. In response, President Bill Clinton (1946–; served 1993–2001) called for
major changes in the way affirmative action was carried out and prohibited quotas, reverse discrimination, and preferential treatment for unqualified individuals.
College admissions and an uncertain future
In the 1996 case Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, the U.S.
Court of Appeals overturned the 1978 Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke decision, which had supported race as a determining
factor in school admissions. In Hopwood, the Court asserted that diversity was not necessarily in the interest of the state. Texas public universities were required to change their admissions processes so that race
would no longer be a factor. In 2003, however, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy, acknowledging that the school could benefit from a diverse
campus, thus ruling that race could be a factor in admissions as long as
it is not an overriding factor.
Affirmative action programs survived into the twenty-first century,
though greatly reduced from their original character. The subject remained highly controversial, with neither opponents nor supporters
showing any sign of changing their position.