affirmative action

1

Affirmative ActionAffirmative Action

2

John F. Kennedy: Executive John F. Kennedy: Executive Order 10925 (1961) Order 10925 (1961)

Used affirmative action Used affirmative action for the first time by for the first time by instructing federal instructing federal contractors to take contractors to take "affirmative action to "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are ensure that applicants are treated equally without treated equally without regard to race, color, regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national religion, sex, or national origin." origin."

Established the Established the President’s Committee on President’s Committee on Equal Employment Equal Employment OpportunityOpportunity

3

Civil Rights Act (1964) Civil Rights Act (1964)

Landmark legislation prohibiting employment Landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers discrimination by large employers

Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)Commission (EEOC)

4

Lyndon B. Johnson: Executive Lyndon B. Johnson: Executive Order 11246 (1965)Order 11246 (1965)

Required all government Required all government contractors and contractors and subcontractors to take subcontractors to take affirmative action to affirmative action to expand job opportunities expand job opportunities for minorities for minorities

Established Office of Established Office of Federal Contract Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor the Department of Labor

Amended in 1967 to Amended in 1967 to expand employment expand employment opportunities for womenopportunities for women

5

Richard M. Nixon: Executive Richard M. Nixon: Executive Order 11625 (1971) Order 11625 (1971)

Directed federal Directed federal agencies to develop agencies to develop comprehensive plans comprehensive plans and specific program and specific program goals for a national goals for a national Minority Business Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) Enterprise (MBE) contracting program contracting program

6

Regents of the University of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)California v. Bakke (1978)

Allan Bakke applied twice for admission to the University of Allan Bakke applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School and was rejected both times. California Medical School and was rejected both times.

The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of 100 for The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of 100 for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program.program.

Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted. students admitted.

Bakke contended that he was excluded from admission solely on Bakke contended that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.the basis of race.

7

Regents of the University of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)California v. Bakke (1978)

Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

The Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one factor in The Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission. It also ruled choosing among qualified applicants for admission. It also ruled unlawful the University Medical School's practice of reserving seats unlawful the University Medical School's practice of reserving seats in each entering class for disadvantaged minority students.in each entering class for disadvantaged minority students.

8

Jimmy Carter: Executive Order Jimmy Carter: Executive Order 12138 (1979) 12138 (1979)

Created a National Created a National Women's Business Women's Business Enterprise Policy and Enterprise Policy and requiring each agency requiring each agency to take affirmative to take affirmative action to support action to support women's business women's business enterprises enterprises

9

United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)v. Weber (1979)

The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. skilled craft workers.

Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. for blacks.

Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination.

10

United Steelworkers of America United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)v. Weber (1979)

Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?race?

The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer's workforce resulting from past discrimination are employer's workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees.white employees.

11

President Ronald Regan: President Ronald Regan: Executive Order 12432 (1983)Executive Order 12432 (1983)

Directed each federal Directed each federal agency with agency with substantial substantial procurement or grant procurement or grant making authority to making authority to develop a Minority develop a Minority Business Enterprise Business Enterprise (MBE) development (MBE) development plan. plan.

12

Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986)(1986)

In 1975, a federal district court found the Local 28 of the Sheet In 1975, a federal district court found the Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union guilty of racial discrimination in violation of Metal Workers Union guilty of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court established a 29 percent minority membership goal and The court established a 29 percent minority membership goal and ordered the union to implement procedures to meet the goal. In ordered the union to implement procedures to meet the goal. In 1982 and 1983, the union was found guilty of civil contempt for 1982 and 1983, the union was found guilty of civil contempt for disobeying the court orders.disobeying the court orders.

The court then established a 29.23 percent nonwhite membership The court then established a 29.23 percent nonwhite membership goal to be met by August 1987. goal to be met by August 1987.

13

Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986)(1986)

Did provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Did provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 empower courts to order race-conscious membership empower courts to order race-conscious membership quotas?quotas?

The Supreme Court upheld a judicially-ordered 29% The Supreme Court upheld a judicially-ordered 29% minority "membership admission goal" for a union that minority "membership admission goal" for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities, had intentionally discriminated against minorities, confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to correct and prevent future discrimination.correct and prevent future discrimination.

14

Johnson v. Transportation Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987) Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)

15


16


The Transportation The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted California promoted Diane Joyce to road Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Johnson.

Both candidates were Both candidates were qualified for the job. qualified for the job.

As an affirmative action As an affirmative action employer, the Agency employer, the Agency took into account the sex took into account the sex of the applicants in of the applicants in making the promotion making the promotion decision.decision.

17


Did the Agency impermissibly take into account the sex Did the Agency impermissibly take into account the sex of the applicants in the promotion process and violate of the applicants in the promotion process and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Supreme Court ruled that a severe under The Supreme Court ruled that a severe under representation of women and minorities justified the use representation of women and minorities justified the use of race or sex as "one factor" in choosing among of race or sex as "one factor" in choosing among qualified candidates.qualified candidates.

18

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989)U.S. 469 (1989)

In 1983, the City Council In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that adopted regulations that required companies required companies awarded city construction awarded city construction contracts to subcontract contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their 30 percent of their business to minority business to minority business enterprises. business enterprises.

The J.A. Croson The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its Company, which lost its contract because of the contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the brought suit against the city.city.

19

Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989)U.S. 469 (1989)

Did the Richmond law violate Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Supreme Court struck The Supreme Court struck down Richmond's minority down Richmond's minority contracting program as contracting program as unconstitutional, requiring that unconstitutional, requiring that a state or local affirmative a state or local affirmative action program be supported action program be supported by a "compelling interest" and by a "compelling interest" and be narrowly tailored to ensure be narrowly tailored to ensure that the program furthers that that the program furthers that interest.interest.

20

Adarand Constructors v. Pena Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

21


22


Adarand, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project Adarand, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. funded by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.

Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." ]Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." ]

Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not.

The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

23


Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

The Supreme Court held that a federal affirmative action The Supreme Court held that a federal affirmative action program remains constitutional program remains constitutional when narrowly tailored to when narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest such as accomplish a compelling government interest such as remedying discrimination.remedying discrimination.

24

President William Clinton: “Mend President William Clinton: “Mend it, Don’t End it” (July 1995)it, Don’t End it” (July 1995)

President Clinton delivered this President Clinton delivered this major speech in defense of major speech in defense of Affirmative Action programs at Affirmative Action programs at the National Archives. the National Archives.

““I am absolutely convinced that I am absolutely convinced that we cannot restore economic we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way problems unless we find a way to bring the American people to bring the American people together. And to bring our together. And to bring our people together we must people together we must openly and honestly deal with openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. “the issues that divide us. “

““We should reaffirm the We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it.”Mend it, but don't end it.”

25

Equal Opportunity Act of 1995Equal Opportunity Act of 1995

Senator Robert Dole Senator Robert Dole and Representative and Representative Charles Canady Charles Canady introduced the so-introduced the so-called Equal called Equal Opportunity Act in Opportunity Act in Congress. Congress.

The act would The act would prohibit prohibit race- or gender-race- or gender-based affirmative based affirmative action in all action in all federalfederal programs. programs.

26

Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)(2003)

27


28


In 1997, Barbara Grutter, applied for In 1997, Barbara Grutter, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law admission to the University of Michigan Law School. School.

Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. admission.

The Law School admits that it uses race as a The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." achieving diversity among its student body."

The District Court concluded that the Law The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. process.

In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, constituted a University of California v. Bakke, constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions.racial preferences in admissions.

29


Does the University of Michigan Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?Rights Act of 1964?

The Supreme Court held that the The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of University of Michigan’s use of race among other factors in its law race among other factors in its law school admissions program was school admissions program was constitutional because the constitutional because the program furthered a compelling program furthered a compelling interest in obtaining “an interest in obtaining “an educational benefit that flows from educational benefit that flows from student body diversity”. student body diversity”.

The Court also found that the law The Court also found that the law school’s program was narrowly school’s program was narrowly tailored; it was flexible, and tailored; it was flexible, and provided for a “holistic” review of provided for a “holistic” review of each applicant.each applicant.

30

Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)(2003)

31


32


In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. 3.8 and ACT score of 25.

She was denied admission and She was denied admission and attended another school. attended another school.

The University admits that it uses The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its achieving diversity among its student body." student body."

In addition, the University has a In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the "underrepresented" on the campus. campus.

33


Does the University of Does the University of Michigan's use of racial Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?of 1964?

The Supreme Court handed The Supreme Court handed down its decision and rejected down its decision and rejected the undergraduate admissions the undergraduate admissions program at the College of program at the College of Literature, Science and the Literature, Science and the Arts, which granted points Arts, which granted points based on race and ethnicity based on race and ethnicity and did not provide for a and did not provide for a review of each applicant’s review of each applicant’s entire file.entire file.

34

MultimediaMultimedia CitationCitation

Slide 1: http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/affirmative_action/Images/hands.jpg http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/affirmative_action/Images/gavel.jpg

Slide 2: http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/955pres24.gif Slide 3: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/av.hom/images/276-10-64.JPG Slide 4: http://www.ee.princeton.edu/~jay/lbj.jpg Slide 5: http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/955pres32.gif Slide 6 - 7: http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/10/affirmative.action/link.bakke.jpg Slide 8: http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/955pres42.gif Slide 9 - 10: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/423/participants Slide 11: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c30228.jpg Slide 12 - 13: http://www.smwialu28.org/index28.html Slide 14 – 17: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/santaclaravis.html Slide 18 - 19: http://www.nunes.house.gov/photos/Supreme_Court.jpg Slide 20 - 23: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/adarand.gif Slide 24: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3c00000/3c07000/3c07700/3c07700r.jpg Slide 25: http://veterans.house.gov/benefits/gi60th/images/bobdole3.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/post.vote.reax/canady.jpg Slide 26 - 27:http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/grutter.gif Slide 28 – 29: http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper255/stills/11t1tz99.jpg Slide 30 - 31: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/gratz.gif Slide 32 – 33: http://media.michigandaily.com/vimages/shared/vnews/stories/41e3bbfd2ea37-44-1.jpg

affirmative action

Documents

affirmative action policy

executive order

affirmative actionjohn

employment discrimination

program regents

basis of race

employment opportunities

use of race