Jump to content

Affirmative action in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rbaish (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 29 December 2007 (Undid revision 180618564 by RedShiftPA (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Affirmative action in the United States is a policy or a program intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities or women). The stated motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population. It is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, by preferential treatment given to applicants from designated groups, and in some cases through the use of quotas.

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it as a means to address past or present discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity.[1]

However, opponents of affirmative action contend that affirmative action programs are discriminatory and that they result in the promotion of under-qualified individuals over higher qualified individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender.[1][2]

In the United States, affirmative action mostly applies at transition points in a person's life: when enrolling for an education, when applying for employment, or when seeking housing. Thus affirmative action has the greatest impact on young people and has little direct effect on the lives of older, more-established members of society.

The overall framework of affirmative action in the United States was established by Executive Order 10925, issued in March 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, but has evolved significantly. The original order required government contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure equal treatment of applicants and employees "without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Today, however, affirmative action is widely considered to mean preferential treatment for certain groups.

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, where it is often contested on constitutional grounds.

Individual American states (such as Missouri, California, Washington and Michigan) also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, and disability status.

mandates that no State deny any person the "equal protection of the laws...without due process." This Clause grants citizens the protection of their Fifth Amendment rights from state actors, because the Bill of Rights only protects citizens from the federal government.
The NAACP filed on behalf of a black student, Linda Brown, who was transported out of her white neighborhood to attend a black school in Topeka, Kansas. The Supreme Court ruled that separate educational facilities were "inherently unequal" and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The next year the Court ordered segregated districts to integrate with "all deliberate speed."
Established the concept of affirmative action by creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and mandating that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.
  • Compensatory Preferential Treatment, 1962
James Farmer, founder of the Congress of Racial Equality, held a meeting with then vice president Lyndon B. Johnson. Farmer proposed that a program that he called Compensatory Preferential Treatment should be put in place in order to advance the equality of the black race. In 1965, Johnson (then president) renamed Compensatory Preferential Treatment "affirmative action" in a famous speech at Howard University, which became the national justification for moving the country beyond nondiscrimination to a more vigorous effort to improve the status of black Americans:
"You do not take a person who, for many years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."[4]
It was a counter-argument to the previously prevailing notion of meritocracy. The skills that merit-based admission rewards are cultivated in children by parents with money. Affirmative action was to be a method by which minorities could eventually develop those skills in their own children.
  • Operation Breadbasket, 1962
Also during this time Martin Luther King Jr and Ralph Abernathy were bringing their southern civil rights movement to the Chicago area. One important part of this strategy was Operation Breadbasket. This operation consisted of targeting local employers and threatening boycotts unless more African Americans were hired by the business. Many of these businesses operated largely in African American neighborhoods and thus had a large customer base to worry about losing if a boycott ensued.[5]
  • Revised Philadelphia Plan
During the Nixon administration, affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects. This "revised Philadelphia plan" was spearheaded by Labor Department official Arthur Fletcher.[6]
In the 1960s and 1970s, affirmative action became overwhelmingly popular on campuses across America as mass student protests spurred schools to actively recruit minority applicants. National excitement died down in the late 1970s, and quickly turned to national controversy.
The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.
The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities..
The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.
  • [Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 1973
Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented.
The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, the court ruled that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.
People with disabilities as a group were more fully recognized as being protected by this act.
established strict scrutiny standard of review for race and ethnic-based Federal Affirmative Action programs.
(first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke).

California

  • Penn/Stump v City of Oakland, 1967
This Consent Decree stated that men and women should be hired by race and gender as police officers in the same percentage that they’re represented in the population of the city. This process took more than twenty years to complete, in part, because police departments at first were never serious in their effort to recruit minorities. There were approximately 34 black police officers on the Oakland Police department. There were no black females among them. At this time, the militant Black Panther Party had formed in part due to police brutality at the hands of Oakland's overwhelmingly white police force and the City of Oakland at the time was approaching an African American majority as well prompting the push for minority police officer recruitment.
[7]
forbids many forms of Affirmative Action. Conservatives claim that state officials have widely disobeyed it. Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions.

Washington

in Washington was overwhelmingly passed by the electorate. Taking effect on December 3, 1998, it applies to all local governments, including counties, cities, and towns. I-200 prohibits "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. The Washington State Legislature has generally been in favor of affirmative action and appears to wish to reinstate aspects of it. However, despite several proposals, they have not yet done so.
  • Smith v. University of Washington 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) :[8] [5]
The Washington State Supreme Court interpreted I-200 to forbid affirmative actions that promote a "less qualified" applicant over a "better qualified" one, but not programs that sought to achieve diversity without consideration of individual merit.

In the beginning, racial classifications that identified race were inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. These classifications would only be upheld if necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Later the U.S. Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and promoted a compelling governmental purpose. (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.) There is no clear guidance about when government action is not "compelling", and such rulings are rare.

Michigan

The Supreme Court ruled (in a 5-4 margin with Sandra Day O'Connor being the swing vote) that race could be used as a criterion in school admissions and that it would not be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly-tailored policy was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's point-based undergraduate admissions policy that took race into account numerically was too mechanical and unconstitutional.
An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."
After Grutter and Gratz, in November 2006, voters in the State of Michigan made affirmative action illegal by passing Proposal 2 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), a state-wide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 2 bans affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. The amendment, however, contains an exception for actions that are mandated by federal law or that are necessary in order for an institution to receive federal funding. The legality of Proposal 2 is the subject of pending litigation.[2]

Implementation in universities

In the U.S., the most prominent form of affirmative action centers on access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of tertiary instruction. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question (legacy admissions), and/or gender are often taken into account when assessing the meaning of an applicant's grades and test scores. Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above.

College Acceptance Rates (2005)[3]
Overall Acceptance Rate Black Acceptance Rate % Difference
Harvard University 10.0% 16.7% + 67.0%
MIT 15.9% 31.6% + 98.7%
Brown 16.6% 26.3% + 58.4%
Penn 21.2% 30.1% + 42.0%
Georgetown 22.0% 30.7% + 39.5%

Affirmative action programs at universities benefit mostly black people and racial minorities (usually in engineering and the physical sciences). Asian Americans, although a racial minority, do not benefit at most colleges because the rate of college education among Asian Americans is higher than the other racial groups (including Caucasians). See model minority for more information.

A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):

  • Blacks: +230
  • Hispanics: +185
  • Asians: –50
  • Recruited athletes: +200
  • Legacies (children of alumni): +160

Study (PDF)

The above estimates for African-Americans, and to a lesser extent Hispanic-Americans, probably understate the disparity. Standardized tests tend to overpredict for individual, high-scoring members of populations with weaker test scores [9][10]. (One's SAT score predicts a certain level of performance. If one performs above this level, the test underpredicted; if the reverse, it overpredicted.) Thus, according to these analyses, accounting for group differences, a Caucasian individual with a score of 1200 would actually be more able on average than an African-American or Hispanic-American with a 1200. Critics say that this failure to adjust scores to improve the test's predictive validity distorts the scores of minorities, and indirectly everyone, as admissions is a zero sum game. Adjusting for this tendency would likely result in more controversy, however, as it is easily misconstrued.

UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of affirmative action in law schools. The article presents a study that, among other things, shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school, and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended, as less qualified black students would instead attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched with their classmates, and thus perform better. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996 which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities California schools. This change occurred after studies that showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.

In order to avoid a system of racial quotas, the State of Texas passed a law guaranteeing entry to any state university of a student's choice if they finished in the top 10% of their graduating class. Florida and California have also replaced racial quotas with class rank and other programs. Class rank tends to discriminate against those at relatively competitive high schools, simply because schools are not uniform in student ability. Consequently, there have been fears that this would lower standards as disadvantaged students from schools with lesser performances would receive an unfair opportunity. Critics argue that class rank is more a measure of one's peers than of one's self. The top 10% law is highly controversial on the grounds that it overemphasizes GPA. A bill has recently passed in the Texas House (but not the Senate) strongly limiting it [11]. Some high schools have refused to rank their students [12].

In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese American undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject his application for admission, and seeking the suspension of federal financial assistance to the university until it "discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms" by eliminating race and legacy preferences. Princeton Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye responded to the claims in the 30 November 2006 issue of the Daily Princetonian by stating that "the numbers don't indicate [discrimination]" and that Li was not admitted because "Many others had far better qualifications." Li's extracurriculars were described as "not all that outstanding" [13].

Results

Patricia Gurin, Ph.D., the Nancy Cantor Distinguished Professor, Emerita, of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, Ph.D., MSW, MA, Associate Professor of Social Work and Director of the Intergroup Dialogue, Education and Action (IDEA) Training and Resource Institute at the University of Washington, and Gretchen E. Lopez, Ph.D., former Assistant Professor of Psychology and Africana and Latin American Studies at Colgate University and now Research Director of the Syracuse University Violence Prevention Project, conducted a series of studies[14] finding positive results for affirmative action. Affirmative action had significant effects in improving citizenship preparation and a student sense of commonality across ethnic boundaries. It also increases student civic engagement and racial/ethnic understanding.

In her expert report for the University of Michigan, Professor Patricia Gurin stated "A racially and ethnically diverse university student body has far-ranging and significant benefits for all students, non-minorities and minorities alike. Students learn better in a diverse educational environment, and they are better prepared to become active participants in our pluralistic, democratic society once they leave such a setting. In fact, patterns of racial segregation and separation historically rooted in our national life can be broken by diversity experiences in higher education.

... These conclusions are confirmed by one of the most broad and extensive series of empirical analyses conducted on college students in relation to diversity. I examined multi-institutional national data, the results of an extensive survey of students at the University of Michigan, and data drawn from a specific classroom program at the University of Michigan. It is clear from all three analyses that interaction with peers from diverse racial backgrounds, both in the classroom and informally, is positively associated with a host of what I call "learning outcomes." Students who experienced the most racial and ethnic diversity in classroom settings and in informal interactions with peers showed the greatest engagement in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and motivation, and growth in intellectual and academic skills.

...There is a consistent pattern of positive relationships between diversity in higher education and both learning and democracy outcomes. This pattern holds across racial and ethnic groups and across a broad range of outcomes. And the benefits of diversity are evident at the national level, after four years of college and five years after leaving college, and in the studies of Michigan students. This consistency is unusual in my experience as a social scientist. These analyses, which are supported by the research literature, provide strong evidence of the compelling benefits to our society of racial diversity in higher education."[15]

Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, identified the following as results of affirmative action based on a review[16] of Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (ISBN 0-300-10199-6, 2004:

  • They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiary of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies;
  • They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., wealthy blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites);
  • They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and
  • They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who — without preferences — consistently outperform them.

Sowell also argued:[17]

What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action — and has barely changed since then.
What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California's state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.
"Minority students are systematically mismatched with institutions" due to racial preferences, where they underperform relative to the student body. Had they gone to an institution without the help of affirmative action, to a less selective school, they would have received better grades and graduated at higher rates.
"When the top-level schools recruit black students who would normally be qualified to succeed at the level next to the top, then the second tier of institutions faces the prospect of either being conspicuously lacking in minority students or (2) dipping down to the next level below to bring in enough minority students for a statistically respectable "representation." Usually they end up mismatching students. Once begun at the top, this process continues on down the line."[18]

Contradictorily, (resting their statements on a claim to data which they refuse to make publicly available[19]) William G. Bown and Derek Bok claim that from 1960 to 1995 the percentage of blacks aged 25–29 who had graduated from college rose from 5.4 to 15.4%, the percentage of blacks in law school grew from below 1 to 7.5%, and the percentage of blacks in medical school increased from 2.2 to 8.1%. They make their claim in book, "The Shape of the River."

Just how much progress has been made by African-Americans as a consequence of AA remains a matter of great dispute.

Disputes

Accusations of racism and cultural insensitivity

One argument against AA (affirmative action) is that it represents government sanctioned racial discrimination, and is demeaning to members of minority groups - that affirmative action wrongly sends a condescending message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits. According to this argument, AA promotes the idea that underrepresented minorities do not and can not emphasize education and high academic achievement as much as the racial majority or "Model Minorities." Many supporters of affirmative action charge that those who make this argument are being ethnocentric and are disingenuously trying to deflect or downplay the role of past and current institutional discrimination of minorities. These critics believe that these proponents are trying to shift the blame onto the victim who was discriminated against in the first place in order to justify rolling back government civil rights policies. Furthermore, many critics believe that those who make this argument are being naive, hypocritical, or vague in their quest to 'change the cultural values' of the minority community. Other supporters of affirmative action argue that it benefits society as a whole. They argue that the end goal of AA should not be one culture, but an embrace of all cultural heritages and, by doing so, we increase the quality of the society. This is widely argued in the realm of education. An example of support for this is a study done by Patricia Gurin, who is part of the American Psychological Association. Gurin found that students who are from a more diverse educational setting had better results in tests designed to measure complex thinking, were more motivated to understand other people’s points of view, were more understanding of differences in cultural environments, and were more confident in their intellectual ability.

Economics

Most proponents of AA believe that eradicating affirmative action would further deepen economic disparity between whites and underrepresented minorities. A common argument made for Affirmative Action is the existence of an "Old Boy's Network". Such a network, it is argued, exists where people with power in organizations are able to and readily elect, promote, and support one another as well as others who are close to them within the organization (for example, the CEO of a company ensures that his best friend's son gets a position in the mail room of his company). Such a network, to the extent that it does exist, represents not a true 'meritocracy', but an oligarchy which creates barriers to entry into it for those who are not connected to the "Old Boy's Network". Nobody from outside the "Old Boy's Network" could be promoted 'from within' a company unless the job was also posted publicly and everyone was given a 'fair chance' via a convoluted and lengthy questionnaire and interview process (for example, the federal government accepts applicants to jobs in the department of interior or department of agriculture on the basis of a numerical score based on a lengthy set of forms and questionnaires they fill out). Those who make this argument, however, also point to the fact that the government gives preferential treatment to veterans and that many organizations give preferential treatment to employees who have worked in the organization in the past. Furthermore, there is 'geographical affirmative action', in which people are more likely to be hired if their application has a local address written on it. All of these examples show ways in which employees are hired based on non-merit criteria.

Those who disagree with this argument point out that, with the exception of the government's preferential treatment of veterans, none of these are cases of affirmative action. Affirmative action involves legal regulation of private enterprises regarding hiring practices. There is no legal regulation for or against 'geographic affirmative action', for example. This argument further runs into the problem of resting on an implicit assumption that people are either connected to the "Old Boy's Network" or a racial minority. Where would one place the black CEO or the poor white coal miner living in West Virginia in that framework? Rather than confronting preferential treatment in a heads on kind of way, affirmative action simply creates more groups who receive preferential treatment. By legalizing and requiring preferential treatment, it promotes preferential treatment and remains mute on the vast number of people who do not fall into either of those categories (i.e., those people who are not members of the Old Boy's Network or minorities) and are discriminated against, in part, as a result of affirmative action law. In other words, opponents of affirmative action in employment and education claim that these programs encourage socioeconomic discrimination in favor of middle-class members of minority groups over better qualified but working-class members from the majority group, since such programs do not consider socioeconomic class. In essence, middle-class minorities with greater opportunities and resources at their disposal are favored over members of the working poor who happen not to be minorities (usually, poor whites). These critics believe this is contrary to claims of "social justice" made by supporters and makes AA policy in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Their argument is a fundamental objection to the use of racial quotas and gender quotas in affirmative action, because such quotas are unable to address social injustice at the fine level of detail which is required. However, proponents of AA reply that quotas are only legal in the US when a judge issues an order for a specific institution to make restitution for past discrimination. There is intense dispute over whether the de jure illegality of quotas prevents de facto quotas in an environment where there is so much pressure to protect against the appearance of discrimination against protected groups. Much time has been spent attempting to show that these "goals" are not quotas.

The law student organization Building a Better Legal Profession has developed a market-based proposal to encourage greater diversity at private companies that avoids the controversial issues surrounding racial quotas. In an October 2007 press conference reported in the Wall Street Journal [4] and the New York Times [5], the group released data publicizing the numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asian-Americans at America's top law firms. The group has sent the information to top law schools around the country, encouraging students to take this demographic data into account when choosing where to work after graduation. [6] As more students choose where to work based on the firms' diversity rankings, firms face an increasing market pressure in order to attract top recruits. [7]

Individual responsibility vs historical responsibility

Critics of affirmative action believe that it rewards or punishes individuals in the present for what their group is supposed to have done in the past. For example, Mike S. Adams argues that affirmative action can be summed up as follows:

Regardless of whether he is guilty of racism, a person is to be punished for racism carried out by other members of his racial group. Regardless of whether he is a victim of racism, a person is entitled to benefits for racism carried out against other members of his racial group.[16]

Proponents of affirmative action respond that such discrepancies that exist are a result of historic segregation. For example, many of the state and city universities had much lower tuition fees during the time they were primarily for whites, while tuition at such institutions have grown faster than the rate of inflation now that more minorities are attending. Tuition fees at the City College of New York were free up until the 1960s when the students were primarily white, but now rival those of state universities now that most of the students are Black, Italian, or Hispanic. However, this college's alumni have among them a record (for public colleges) eight Nobel laureates, all minorities (Ashkenazi Jews.[20]). Further, a qualified minority with 90 average and a good SAT can qualify for honors college.[citation needed] Had Thurgood Marshall been admitted to Maryland, as a resident of Baltimore he would not have had to pay tuition. Howard, a private institution, had substantial tuition fees, but was at the time (the 1930s) the only ABA-accredited law program at a historically Black university.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a proponent of preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged groups. When asked if it was fair to ask for "multi-billion dollar program of preferential treatment," King said that it was, and cited the GI Bill as a precedent for giving a particular group special treatment. He summed up his views on the subject by saying "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."[8]

Libertarian view

Some free market libertarians argue that employment discrimination is only made possible by pervasive market failures. Under a regime of highly competitive labor and goods markets, companies would not be able to afford to hire on any basis other than merit. According to Libertarians, this would render affirmative action unnecessary.

Regardless of the willingness to pay and profitability for private persons or groups to discriminate, other libertarian-oriented persons further argue that affirmative action and non-discrimination policies violate individual rights of freedom of association and the enforcement of such statues violate individual freedom of speech. They argue that such central authority to dictate moral and social improvement is a power that will be fought over on all sides and ultimately cause more harm than good. For example, private female-only gyms have been forced to hire male workers, American colleges have discriminated against Asian students (on the grounds that they are "overrepresented"), and in Washington DC, individuals have been forbidden to advertise that they wish to share an apartment with another Democrat, homosexual, or with someone of similar faith. They conclude that application of affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws to the conduct or property of an individual or a private group is a threat to civil liberties.[20]

Centrist view

Certain people have a different point of view about specifically first world affirmative action which, for lack of a better word, will be referred to as "centrist" here. They claim that affirmative action makes sense, but only to the point where it helps the disadvantaged members of minorities, as opposed to the middle and upper class. They believe that affirmative action, as it is now, is not fulfilling its original purpose (to bring minorities out of poverty) as the vast majority of minorities, in the first world at least, are already middle-class. There have been cases of middle-class minorities receiving better jobs or college acceptance rates than whites of equal or lower income or social standing. According to this point of view, affirmative action should be eliminated and joined with the normal welfare system that helps both whites and blacks that are lower-class. They believe that affirmative action should only be used to bring the lower class, not a specific racial group, out of poverty. This view is particularly associated with the liberal academic and author Walter Benn Michaels. [21]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ L. Anita Richardson, What Is the Constitutional Status of Affirmative Action?: Reading Tea Leaves, in ABA Focus on Law Studies, Spring 1998, Volume XIII Number 2, American Bar Association; part of article series "Affirmative Action: A Dialogue on Race, Gender, Equality and Law in America". Accessed online September 7, 2006.
  2. ^ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Granholm, No. 2:06-cv-15024 (E.D. Mi.) (Lawson); Nos. 06-2640, 06-2642 (6th Cir. 2007)
  3. ^ "Acceptance Rates".
  4. ^ Amir Efrati, You Say You Want a Big-Law Revolution, Take II, "Wall Street Journal", October 10, 2007.
  5. ^ Adam Liptak, In Students’ Eyes, Look-Alike Lawyers Don’t Make the Grade, New York Times, October 29, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/us/29bar.html?em&ex=1193889600&en=4b0cd84261ffe5b4&ei=5087%0A
  6. ^ Henry Weinstein, Big L.A. law firms score low on diversity survey: The numbers of female, black, Latino, Asian and gay partners and associates lag significantly behind their representation in the city's population, according to a study, "Los Angeles Times", October 11, 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-diversity11oct11,1,661263.story?coll=la-headlines-california
  7. ^ Thomas Adcock and Zusha Elinson, Student Group Grades Firms On Diversity, Pro Bono Work, "New York Law Journal," October 19, 2007, http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?hubtype=BackPage&id=1192698212305
  8. ^ The Forgotten Teachings of Martin Luther King

References

  1. Shaheen Lakhan - Diversification of U.S. Medical Schools via Affirmative Action Implementation. BMC Medical Education. 3:6. 2003.
  2. U.S. Department of Labor - U.S. Executive Order 11246 EEO and Affirmative Action Guidelines for Federal Contractors Regarding Race, Color, Gender, Religion, and National Origin
  3. U.S. Department of Labor - Executive Order 11246, As Amended
  4. Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Affirmative Action
  5. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  6. Richard H. Sander - Richard Sander's Homepage A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 57 Stanford Law Review 367 (2004).
  7. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry
  8. Cato Institute Policy Analysis 540
  9. David E. Bernstein - You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws, Cato Institute, October 25, 2004
  10. Thomas J. Espenshade & Chang Y. Chung, Princeton University - The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities (a study), Social Science Quarterly', Volume 86, Number 2, June 2005.

Websites critical of affirmative actions

Organizations

Miscellaneous

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States&oldid=180822305"