BY Jaquille Douarnynney
Justin Cotto
Corey Singleton
Brittany Lewonka
Lezeny Nunez
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
AIM: WHAT IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

Affirmative action refers to policies that take
factors including "race, color, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, or national origin" into
consideration in order to benefit an
underrepresented group "in areas of
employment, education, and business".
DO NOW

Do you think affirmative action should still be in
effect today? Why or why not?
WHY DOES IT EXIST?




Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities
of defined groups within a society.
It is often instituted in government and educational settings
to ensure that minority groups within a society are included
in all programs.
The stated justification for affirmative action by its
proponents is that it helps to compensate for past
discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class
of a culture, and to address existing discrimination.
The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the
United States, is considered by its proponents to be justified
by disparate impact.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE EARLY DAYS



Affirmative action is a federal agenda initiated in the 1960s that’s
designed to counteract historic discrimination faced by ethnic
minorities, women and other underrepresented groups.
To foster diversity and compensate for the ways such groups have
historically been excluded, institutions with affirmative action
programs prioritize the inclusion of minority groups in the
employment, education and government sectors, among others.
Affirmative Action is also known as equal opportunity, race-based
preferences for example women and minorities are allowed entry into
professions formerly off limits to them. Most commonly, colleges use
this action to promote diversity among their campus in order to
attract students from all backgrounds to apply.
WHERE IT STANDS TODAY?
There are still issues and controversies
surrounding affirmative action are not expected
to be resolved and perhaps not even in my
lifetime.
 For now, we can only hope that we can all look
at the issue sociological and objective, rather
than personal, point of view and at least
understand positions, even if we don’t agree
with it.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: PROS
It allows minority students and workers who
start at a disadvantage get a boost to succeed.
 Affirmative action creates diversity.
 Special preference is given to minorities to
make up for years of discrimination.
 It may help to break stereotypes.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: CONS
It may disparage some minorities from trying to
succeed on their own.
 It may hinder the progression of not making
decisions based on race.
 Affirmative action may create endorsement-like
feelings towards discrimination.
 Because of affirmative action, a minority may
beat out someone more capable for a job or
school, simply because of race or gender.

PARENTS V. SEATTLE 2007

The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high
school in the District. Since certain schools often became
oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first
choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which
students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most
important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial
diversity. If the racial demographics of any school's student body
deviated by more than a predetermined number of percentage points
from those of Seattle's total student population (approximately 40%
white and 60% non- white), the racial tiebreaker went into effect. At a
particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for
admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance
closer to the goal.
PARENTS V. SEATTLE 2007 (CONT)


A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools
(Parents), sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Washington state law. A federal District Court dismissed the
suit, upholding the tiebreaker.
Under the Supreme Court's precedents on racial
classification in higher education, Grutter v.
Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, race-based classifications
must be directed toward a "compelling government interest"
and must be "narrowly tailored" to that interest.
Q’S



1) Do the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v.
Bollinger apply to public high school students?
2) Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify
the use of race in selecting students for admission to
public high schools?
3) Does a school district that normally permits a student
to attend the high school of her choice violate the Equal
Protection Clause by denying the student admission to
her chosen school because of her race in an effort to
achieve a desired racial balance?
A’S



No, no, and yes. By a 5-4 vote, the Court applied a "strict scrutiny" framework and
found the District's racial tiebreaker plan unconstitutional under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the plurality opinion that "The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a
compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that "the
present cases are not governed by Grutter."
Unlike the cases pertaining to higher education, the District's plan involved no
individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of
diversity ("white" and "non-white"). The plans also lacked the narrow tailoring that is
necessary for race-conscious programs. The District also failed to show that its
objectives could not have been met with non-race-conscious means. In a separate
opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Kennedy agreed that the District's use of
race was unconstitutional but stressed that public schools may sometimes consider
race to ensure equal educational opportunity.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORINA
V. BAKKE




Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for
admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He
was rejected both times.
The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one
hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's
affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding,
unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession.
Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those
of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's
applications were rejected.
Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme
Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of
race.
Q’S

Did the University of California violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection
clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by
practicing an affirmative action policy that
resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's
application for admission to its medical school?
A’S



No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices
contended that any racial quota system supported by government
violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,
agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to
admit Bakke.
However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial
quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices
held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in
higher education was constitutionally permissible.
So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of
equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial
minorities through affirmative action
CITY OF RICHMOND V. J.A. CORSON CO.



In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that
required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30
percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson
Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside,
brought suit against the city.
The Supreme Court held that the city of Richmond's minority set-aside
program, which gave preference to minority business enterprises (MBE) in
the awarding of municipal contracts, was unconstitutional under the Equal
Protection Clause. The Court found that the city failed to identify both the
need for remedial action and that other non-discriminatory remedies would
be insufficient.
Croson involved a minority set-aside program in the awarding of municipal
contracts. Richmond, with a black population of just over 50 percent, had
set a 30 percent goal in the awarding of city construction contracts, based
on its findings that local, state, and national patterns of discrimination had
resulted in all but complete lack of access for minority-owned businesses.
Q’S & A’S



Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment?
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that "generalized assertions" of
past racial discrimination could not justify "rigid" racial quotas for the
awarding of public contracts. Justice O'Connor's opinion noted that
the 30 percent quota could not be tied to "any injury suffered by
anyone," and was an impermissible employment of a suspect
classification.
O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to
serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert
constitutional values: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a
society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and
achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based
on inherently immeasurable claims of past wrongs."
WYGANT V. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION



Under the collective bargaining agreement between the Jackson
Board of Education (Board) and a teachers' union, teachers with the
most seniority would not be laid off. It was also agreed not to lay off a
percentage of minority personnel that exceeded the percentage of
minority personnel employed at the time of a layoff.
When the schools laid off some nonminority teachers, while retaining
other minority teachers with less seniority, Wendy Wygant, a
displaced nonminority teacher, challenged the layoff in district court.
Holding that the Board could grant racial preferences without
grounding them on prior discrimination findings and that the
preferences did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, since they
remedied discrimination by providing "role models" for minority
students, the District Court upheld the layoff provision's
constitutionality. When the appeals court affirmed, the Supreme
Court granted Wygant certiorari.
Q’S & A’S



Did the collective bargaining agreement provision for race-based
layoffs violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?
Yes. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court argued that Wygant's layoff
stemmed from race and, therefore, violated the Equal Protection
Clause. The Court noted that the government, when embarking on
affirmative action, had two duties: first, to justify racial classification
with a compelling state interest and second, to demonstrate that its
chosen means were narrowly tailored to its purpose.
Regarding the first, the Court rejected the lower court's argument
that racial preferences were justified because the percentage of
minority students exceeded the percentage of minority teachers. At
best, this argument implied a separate but equal system, which the
Court rejected in Brown v. Board of Education. Instead, racial
preferences had to be based on prior discrimination.
VISUAL AIDS

The concept behind this
picture shows how
affirmative action
(gender) is used in
regards to the workforce.

This picture has the
concept of male, female,
black, white, Asian,
Hispanic, whatever religion
or race. It doesn’t matter.
Everybody should be able
to do everything together.
OPINIONS

Affirmative Action is a very controversial law
and most people question if it is fair. I
personally believe it is fair and necessary in
hopes that one day it will completely break
down racial tension and discrimination against
minorities. Also I think that it truly provides an
equal opportunity for those who didn't have
one.
STATISTICS