The history and future of the controversial program.
By Ryan Werder, University of Michigan
Wednesday April 25, 2007
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.
--------
Comments
Thanks for the information and for sounding the alarm.
I have forwarded this resources to members of a task force of the American Association for Affirmative Action that will be mounting a campaign to defeat these proposals.
Again, thanks
— Jose J. Soto - Apr 25, 11:38 PM - #I am completely opposed to affirmative action, because it is a form of social engineering. I certainly do not believe that any governmental body has the right to pass legislative initiatives that are unfairly favorable or detrimental to a certain ethnic group or nationality or sexual orientation or what-have-you (the 14th Amendment explicitly prohibits this).
— Will Jolly - May 2, 03:30 PM - #However, I do believe that private organizations should retain the right to select their own members, regardless of whether or not the process is discriminatory. I think suing businesses for discriminatory hiring practices is a waste of time; after all, why would a person want to work at a place where they weren’t wanted.
As for the wage gap between men and women, it is certainly not an example of institutional discrimination. You conveniently forget to mention the fact that many women are out of the workforce, staying at home and taking care of the children and cleaning the house, which has traditionally been the role of the woman. And when the woman does re-enter the workforce after having been out for many years, she often has to start out at a lower-level job because she lacks the prerequisite experience to get higher pay.
Another reason the whole wage-gap issue is overblown is simple: money. If I can get away with paying a woman 21.5 percent less than a man, I would hire an all-female workforce and therefore make a greater profit than I would with a mixed gender workforce, because I wouldn’t have to pay them as much.
If this is so, then why aren’t there more businesses doing it? That’s a rhetorical question; you can re-read my assertion two paragraphs ago for clarification.
In short, I believe that private entities should have sole discretion over choosing their members, regardless of whether or not they are discriminatory. And I am totally opposed to government program that attempts to pass legislation on the basis of personal characteristics.
I believe that affirmative action is not the problem. It’s the people who are running the instuitions and who control minorities getting a job. I for one think it will always be this way because there are still to many racist people out there who want the minority community to fail.
— Dionne Terrell - Dec 4, 02:13 PM - #As far as private organizations retaining their right to pick and chhose their own members whether or not it is based on discrimination is purely hog wash. That is what is keeping this issue upfront. I believe that you, Will Jolly, were discriminated against you would feel a little differently. If you had to go through the struggle that nearly all minorities are going through this very second, you would think twice about what you write.