Transcript Affirmative Action - University of Virginia

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 nondiscrimination 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)



Increasing minority representation


discrimination
slavery
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?