Crib Sheet: Affirmative Action

The history and future of the controversial program.

By Ryan Werder, University of Michigan

Affirmative action is the process by which an employer or university takes into account the social advantages or disadvantages an applicant has faced, including gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, or socio-economic background when making a hiring or admissions decision. It is currently under attack in the form of ballot initiatives in a number of states.

President Kennedy was the first to use the term. In Executive Order 10925, Kennedy ordered the creation the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity with the mandate to ensure that projects involving federal funds “take affirmative action” for the purpose of keeping employment decisions free of racial bias.

President Johnson, though, was the man who brought affirmative action to its modern definition. In a speech on June 4, 1965 at Howard University, Johnson said, “This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights…not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” He followed up his words with actions. Roughly four months later on September 24, 1965 Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 which effectively began the enforcement of affirmative action, at least for federal government contractors. In 1967, the order was amended to include gender.

Since that point, affirmative action has expanded well beyond government contracting. It became common practice for many companies and universities as the benefits of diversity—both for public relations as well as practical reasons—became widely acknowledged. Never, though, has the practice achieved anything approaching universal acceptance.

Why is there a need for affirmative action?
Proponents of affirmative action generally offer two rationales, the first being the righting of past wrongs. Special efforts toward diversity in hiring and admissions are seen as a way to overcome systemic injustices that hobble minority or female applicants’ chances even before their applications are turned in. The second is the belief that affirmative action is necessary to end the cycle of said systemic injustices. Implicit in this strain of thought is that the purpose of affirmative action is to end the need for affirmative action. By offering everyone a leveled playing field via the current process, the field itself will eventually become level. At that point, affirmative action will no longer be necessary.

Nonetheless, we’re not yet at that point. There is still discrimination in hiring: Women are paid less than men, and minority employment and enrollment is rarely equivalent to the actual population densities of the areas in question. In a professional world where hiring is so dependent on “connections” and “networking,” individuals who are shut out of the system because of a trait far beyond their control will often find themselves shut out for life.

A final justification for affirmative action is diversity. Many proponents of affirmative action, including the military, major corporations, and most prestigious universities, argue that diverse student bodies or staffs improves the productivity or educational quality they seek to achieve. They say that the benefits of diverse viewpoints benefit everyone involved. Secondarily they also often argue that it behooves the nation to have an academic, financial, and military elite that reflects the diversity of the nation.

Is affirmative action a quota system?
No! While the Supreme Court has a number of times upheld affirmative action programs in education and other contexts, recent Supreme Court cases explicitly state that quotas cannot be used in admissions or hiring. When making such decisions, affirmative action merely takes race and gender into account—it does not make the decision dependent upon it.

Who is Ward Connerly?
In short: the man behind the crusade against affirmative action nationwide. Connerly, a wealthy African-American businessman, is the champion for tearing down affirmative action. He’s made a career of attacking social justice programs, especially those which primarily benefit African-Americans. Connerly believes that because he, personally, achieved wealth in his life, anyone else can do it, too. Thus, in his mind, affirmative action is superfluous. He says it creates an “invisible wall of difference that sets us apart.” In reality, Connerly is creating a far different wall, one that will continue to separate deserving minorities and women from jobs and colleges that need them. For more information, check the Campus Progress profile on him.

What are the statewide ballot initiatives?
Prop 209 was a 1996 ballot initiative in California that banned the practice of affirmative action throughout the state. A nearly identical ballot initiative passed in Michigan in 2006 as Prop 2/Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Both were initiated by Connerly and his allies, and both passed. Prop 209 has decimated minority representation in California’s flagship universities. As Lauren Dunn recently noted in a Campus Progress article: “In Los Angeles County, which has the second largest African American population in the entire United States, the most prestigious local public university, UCLA, has only 96 African-Americans as part of this year’s freshman class of 4,852 students. That’s only 2 percent, and it represents the smallest population of African-American UCLA students in over 30 years.”

What is the future of affirmative action?
Connerly and his allies are planning a “Super Tuesday for equality.” Translation: They’re planning to push ballot proposals like Prop 2 and Prop 209 in nine different states. If you’re living in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming, or Utah, then get ready. It’s going to be a hard fight.

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh