is a fairly recent yet significant issue in
The history of
Affirmative Action began quite recently. On
1964 was not the first time, however, that affirmative action came up. President John F. Kennedy first introduced the term “affirmative action” when he issued the Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961 (Infoplease) which ensured that all applicants are “treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” (In Motion) and was originally intended to protect African Americans. Later, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 to enforce affirmative action in the workplace. From that point on, federal contractors were required to expand opportunities for minorities and women (In Motion). Some private, non-contract companies and unions voluntarily adopted affirmative action policies in spirit with the government’s new policies (Telerama).
The first significant Supreme Court case was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Reverse discrimination became the issue, because the school had separate admission policies for minorities. The medical school reserved 16 out of 100 places for minority students (Infoplease). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the policies set aside for minorities had violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, it also ruled that “race-conscious” policies that benefited minorities were allowed if race was not the only factor considered when accepting students (Telerama).
affirmative action policies are largely in the hands of the federal government,
the Supreme Court are constantly continuing to shape them. On
Affirmative action is mainly significant in two
spheres: Academics and Labor. Affirmative action in higher education seems to
only matter in the highly selective institutions since most state and community
colleges are open to all qualified students according to a study which has
found that affirmative action practices show no affect in schools below the top
quintile (Long 2004). It is important to note that the selection of unqualified
candidates is not permitted under federal affirmative action guidelines and
should not be equated with legal forms of affirmative action (
There are two main ways to institute affirmative action. The first is to have programs that have different test cut-offs for minorities and blacks. The second is less dependent on test scores but relies more on strong competition for qualified minority students by means of incentives. The implementation of Affirmative action has led to a rise of minority students in higher education. For example, in 1960, black enrollment was less than 2% of total enrollment in higher education; it rose to 4% in 1970, 8% in 1980, and in the 1990s was a little under 10% (Therstrom 1999). Similar gains have also been reported in Hispanic applicants (Strategy Unit 2006). A study of the affects of affirmative action has also shown that the probability of acceptance of black applicants has risen from 13% to 42% as a result of the policies (Bok and Bowen, 1998).
Looking at the performance statistics of minority students at undergraduate and professional school levels, we have studies that point out that minority students perform worse than their white male counterparts (Davidson 1997) However, it is worth noting that undergraduate black students perform better at selective colleges then similar blacks at non-selective colleges (Bok and Bowen, 1998). Therefore, it appears that affirmative action has had a positive affect on minority students. Many opponents argue that affirmative action polices will lead to reverse-discrimination toward white students. According to Bok and Bowmen though, displacement of white applicants by minorities at colleges at even elite schools is not very large because Hispanics and Blacks still only account for 10-15% of all students at these schools (Bok and Bowmen 1998). Even with the use of affirmative action whites still outnumber Blacks and Hispanics in college graduation rates (US Bur. Census, 2004). There is also evidence of higher minority retention rates at schools that implement strong affirmative action forms compared to the weaker ones (Hallinan, 1998).
The Supreme Court in Bakke and Grutter concluded that states should have interest in racial diversity in institutions of higher education. There is little research that examines the effects of diversity in such institutions. Some studies suggest that diversity benefits students in their inter-group relations and the ability to understand others’ perspectives (Gurin 1999, Orfield &Whitla 2001). A study at the University of Michigan graduates found that students who had interaction with a diverse group of peers had a greater respect for other ethnic groups, were more likely to have racially or ethnically integrated lives five years after graduation, and more often reported that their undergraduate education had helped them prepare for their current job (Gurin 1999). Another study in which students were randomly assigned a white or minority roommate showed that those students with a roommate who is a minority had more contact and greater comfort with members of other races at the year’s end (Duncan 2003). These studies do show that there is some evidence that shows how diversity might have a positive effect on students’ attitudes but there is no rigorous evidence to fully support this conclusion (Holzer and Newmark 2000a).
see the effectiveness of affirmative action we can look at what happens once
affirmative action is removed from higher education.
of affirmative action argue that college admission should be primarily based on
a student’s academic record. This, however, would lead to almost no diversity
at top universities because White and Asian students would account for 96-97
percent of undergraduates (Jencks p7-9). Critics also say that the only way to
create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies but color-blind
college admissions favor White students because of their earlier educational
One alternative to race based affirmative action suggested by Kahlenberg at The Century Foundation is a class based program where parents’ education, income, and occupation are used as socioeconomic determinants. Kahlenberg thinks that consideration should be given to net worth, family structure, school quality, and neighborhood quality. Bok and Bowmen found that 86 percent of black students at the selective colleges studied were from middle or high socioeconomic backgrounds (Bok and Bowmen, 1998). Although it is fairly common for the more well-off minorities to benefit from affirmative action, we must remember that the same goes for Whites. It is no secret that colleges prefer wealthier Whites to poorer Whites.
Opponents of affirmative action in the labor sectors
state that affirmative action causes reverse-discrimination leading to fewer
jobs for white males, that it leads to lower productivity due to hiring of less
skilled workers, and lastly, that it just does not work. Affirmative action in
the labor sector does lead to a redistribution of jobs away from white males
towards females and minorities though the shifts are not large, mainly because
the affirmative action sectors are small (Holzer
& Neumark, 2000). However, according to the U.S.
Commerce Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112
million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even
if every unemployed Black worker in the
Reverse discrimination does not hold much clout since white males have the ability to move into employment in areas that do not use affirmative action more easily than minorities (Holzer & Neumark, 2005). A study also done by Holzer and Nuemark shows a clear correlation between affirmative action polices and redistribution of jobs in which employment of white males was about 18% lower in jobs which used affirmative action compared to those that did not (Holzer 1996). Though there are many studies that were clear to point out that “this [did] not necessarily imply that employment of white males overall is reduced by Affirmative Action, but only that it [was] redistributed to the non-Affirmative Action sector (Holzer & Neumark 2005)”. Even though affirmative action redistributes jobs away from the white male majority the shifts are relatively small.
In regards to the claim that affirmative action policies lead to lower efficiency and productivity because of the hiring of unqualified workers, Holzer and Neumark found that performance of white females was comparable with that of white males. However, while comparing minorities, they did find weaker educational credentials and as a result some evidence showing weaker performance in the workforce (Holzer and Neumark 1999). Productivity though was not lost in these companies because companies had to use better recruitment techniques such as better screening of applicants, a larger applicant pool, and provide more on-the-job training for their hired employees (Silva and Jacob,1993; Campbell 1996). Other studies in different employment sectors, such as law enforcement and medical services, where on the job performance can be much easily measured, the outcomes were similar to what has been stated above. For example, precincts which hired women and minority officers did not show a worsening crime rate (Lovrich and Steel, 1983). Studies of minority physicians find that there is no correlation to weaker performance compared to their white counterparts, after the doctor has been certified (Cantor 1996; Davidson and Lewis 1997). Based on these studies it seems that there is no decline in productivity when hiring women and only a minor loss, if any at all, in minority workers.
critics of affirmative action do not believe that affirmative action is
working. This is a much harder area to judge since these polices have only been
a round for the last forty years. However a study done by Leanord
1990 found that employment of black males in federal contractor firms grew
about 5 percent faster during 1974-1980 than did white male employment. This
time period showed rigorous enforcement of AA policies for the first time since
there enactment. Though since that period of time there has not been an
improvement in employment rate of black workers to white (Bureau of Labor
Statistics). There have also been a number of well-publicized cases in which
large companies increased minority employment as a result of adopting
affirmative action policies (
claims by opponents of affirmative action include that
affirmative action policies lower standards of accountability needed to
push students or employees to perform better, that it is condescending to
minorities to say they need affirmative action to succeed, that it causes
“reverse discrimination,” and that it demeans true minority achievement (BalancedPolitics). We have not found any conclusive data
that backs any of these claims. In regards to the claim about a color-blind
society, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect White workers against
job layoffs, because senior employees are usually White (Ezorsky,
1991). As for reverse discrimination, according to the U.S. Commerce
Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112 million
employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even if every
unemployed Black worker in the
majority of people favor affirmative action programs. A Time/CNN poll
found that 80% of the public felt that affirmative action programs for
minorities and women should be continued at some level (Roper Center for Public
Opinion, 1995). The public does for the most part oppose quotas, set-asides,
and reverse discrimination (
are many countries that employ affirmative action policies, including
Taking our findings into account, we strongly advise you to keep, if not add to, the affirmative action policies in place. We do suggest that you perhaps put a stronger emphasis on policies that focus on socio-economic background and apply it to both minorities and Whites alike. According to a 2003 Gallup Poll, the majority of people in all segments of the population agree with establishing training courses or policies which raise people’s awareness about fairness in hiring women as well as minorities (USATODAY.com). We therefore recommend instituting these types of courses as much as possible as other training courses that educate the public about the importance and benefits of diversity.
“Affirmative action, negative reaction; British universities.” The Economist.
Blank, Jonah. “Quotas that are cast in stone:
Blau, Francine and Marianne Ferber. The Economics of Women,
Men and Work. 1992.
Bound, John and Richard Freeman. "Black Economic Progress: Erosion of Black Americans." The Question of Discrimination. 1989.
Bowen, W. G. and David Bok. The shape of the river: Long-term
consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. 1998.
Brunner, Borgna. “Timeline of Affirmative Action.”
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1990 Population Survey.
Cantor, Joel; Erika Miles, Laurence Baker and Dianne Baker. 1996. “Physician Service to the Underserved: Implications of Affirmative Action in Medical Education.” Inquiry. v33, n2, p167-80.
Campbell, John. “Group Differences and Personnel Decisions: Validity, Fairness, and Affirmative Action.” 1996. Journal of Vocational Behavior. v 49, n.2, p122-58.
Chambers DL, et al. “The real impact of eliminating affirmative action in American law schools.” 2005. Stanford Law Rev.
Darity, W.A. Jr. and P.L. Mason. “Evidence on Discrimination in Employment: Codes of Color, Codes of Gender”. 1998. Journal of Economic Perspectives. p63-90.
Davidson, Robert and Ernest Lewis.
“Affirmative Action and
other special consideration admission at the
Ashwini. “Affirmative Action in
Edward. “Fatal fires of protest: why
Singh's decision to improve the lot of lower-caste members has driven so many
Indians to commit suicide.” Time.
Donohue, John and James Heckman. "Continuous versus Episodic Change: The Impact of Federal Civil Rights Policy on the Economic Status of Blacks." 1991. Journal of Economic Literature. v29, p1603-43.
Ezorsky, G. Racism
and justice: The case for affirmative action. 1991.
"Gallup Poll results." 20 May 2005. USAToday.com.
Hedrick-Wong, Yuwa. “
Holzer, Harry. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for
Less-Educated Workers. 1996.
Holzer, Harry and David Neumark. “Assessing Affirmative Action.” 2000a. Journal of Economic Literature. v38, n3, p483-568.
Holzer, Harry and David Neumark. “What Does Affirmative Action Do?” 2000b. Industrial and Labor Relations Review.
v53, n2, p240-71.
Holzer, Harry and David Neumark. “Affirmative Action: What Do We Know?” 2005. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Class Based Affirmative Action in College Admissions.” The
Century Foundation. 24 May 2000 <http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/AffirmativeAction.pdf>.
Le, C.N. “Affirmative Action.” Asian-Nation.
“Legal History.” History of Affirmative
Long, Mark. 2004. “Race and College Admissions: An Alternative to Affirmative Action?” The Review of Economics and Statistics. v86, n4, p1020-33.
Lovrich, Nicholas and Brent Steel. “Affirmative Action and Productivity in Law Enforcement Agencies.” 1983. Review of Public Personnel Administration. v4, n1, p55-66.
Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. “Affirmative
Action in the
Puma, Michael J., et al. “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes.”
"Race and Ethnicity." PollingReport.com.
Dan. “The Xenophobia Police (affirmative action in
Silva, Jay and Rick Jacobs. 1993. “Performance as a Function of Increased Minority Hiring.” Journal of Applied Psychology. v78, n4, p591-601.
Thomas. “Advantages for the advantaged; Affirmative action.
(Affirmative Action around the World: An Empirical Study (Book Review).” The Economist.
Thomas. “International Affirmative Action.” Capitalism Magazine.
Sterba, James. “Affirmative Action Around
the World: An Empirical Study (Book Review).” Stanford Law Review. Nov
2004. v57 i2 p657. New Haven & London:
“Ten Myths About
Abigail and Stephen. “
Thernstrom, Abigail and Stephen. No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. 2002.
Tienda M, et al. “Closing the gap? Admissions and enrollments at the
Wierzbicki S, Hirschman C.
2002. “The end of
affirmative action in
Wilcher, Shirley. “The History of
Affirmative Action Policies.”