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)


 discrimination slavery
Increasing minority representation
 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
14 th 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?