affirmative action
intro
method | example | year |
constitutional amendment | 24th amendment: voting rights cannot be denied for non payment of poll tax | 1964 |
legislation | voting rights act: ended literacy and other tests as requirements for voter registration | 1965 |
SC decision | Brown v Board of Education of Topeka: declared segregated schools to be unconstitutional | 1954 |
presidential leadership | President Eisenhower: sent federal troops to Little Rock to integrate the High School. President Kennedy: created equal employment opportunity commission | 1957 1961 |
citizen action | montgomery, alabama - bus boycott freedom riders march for jobs and freedom | 1955 1961 1963 |
why affirmative action?
ongoing argument between ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘equality of results’
affirmative action: a programme giving members of a previously disadvantaged minority group a head start in eg higher education/employment
busing: the mandated movement of school children between racially homogeneous neighbourhoods to create racially mixed school
quotas: a programme whereby a certain percentage of places in eg higher education or employment is reserved for people from previously disadvantaged minorities
the crux of the divide
(most) democrats n liberals | (most) conservatives and repulicans |
burdens of racism could only be overcome by taking race into account when designing remedies | affirmative actions represents reverse discrimination
|
rights did not deliver true change n benefits had to be added | federal and state laws should be ‘colour blind’ |
affirmative action in education:
| essentially equality of opportunity should be paramount
|
affirmative action in employment:
| |
affirmative actions results:
|
Supreme Court n affirmative action
gratz v bollinger (2003): 6-3
university of michigan’s affirmative action-based admissions programme was unconstitutional because it was too mechanistic
all black, hispanic n american-indian applicants were automatically given 20/150pts towards admission
grutter v bollinger (2003): 5-4
university law school’s admissions programme was constitutional because it used a more ‘individualised approach’ in considering the racial profile of it students
net effect: unis can continue to use affirmative action providing they carefully look at each applicant’s ability on an individual basis (applies to gratz v bollinger also)
community schools inc v seattle school district and meredith v jefferson county (kentucky) board of education
court declared it unconstitutional to assign students to public schools purely to achieve racial balance
both schools centred upon racial quotas of white n minority representation in school which wouldn’t be achieved otherwise due to racially segregated housing
both rulings were 5-4
both sides of the court saw themselves as protecting the equal protection rights announced in 1954 Brown ruling
case of abigail fisher
abigail fisher: young white Texan woman
applied to Uni of Texas but was rejected
filed a lawsuit saying she had been a victim of racial discrimination
claimed that minority race students with less impressive qualifications than hers had been accepted
Fisher v University of Texas (2010)
ruled the Uni of Texas’ use of race in admission policy must be subjected to stricter scrutiny » possibly involved racial discrimination
Federal Appeals Court reinstructed to hear the case using stricter scrutiny
2014: Federal Appeals Court heard the case again
found in favour of Texas Uni
Fisher appealed to SC again
Fisher v University of Texas (2016)
expected the Court to go against the Federal Appeals Court ruling n strike a blow to affirmative action programme
4-3 ruling: upheld Fed Court ruling in favour of the Uni of Texas
Justice Kagan prior involvement in lower court, prior SC appointment = could not vote
Justice Scalia’s seat had been vacant
varied reaction
public opinion on affirmative action
“in order to overcome past discrimination do you favour or oppose affirmative action programmes?”
63% said they favour
29% opposed
“do you think affirmative action programmes designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good or bad thing?”
60% said good
30% said bad
“do you think affirmative action programmes designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a fair or unfair thing?”
47% said fair
42% said unfair
“do you think that we should make every possible effort to improve the position of blacks and other minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment?”
24% agreed
72% disagreed
impact of affirmation action:
white population: 2% helped, 13% hurt, 84% unaffected
african-americans: 4% helped, 8% hurt, 87% unaffected
what to do with AA?
Conservatives (mainly in Republican party) favour abolition
moderate view would agree with some of the above but would be impressed with the achievements of the programmes
the third argument is expressed by President' Clinton’s phrase » ‘mend it, don’t end it’
liberals (found mostly in the Democrat Party) favour the continuation of the policies and that the programmes have much to do
has affirmative action been good for America?
yes: | no: |
it has helped reverse the decades of discrimination and righted numerous wrongs | it has divided the black community rather than empowered it |
it has given the black American community hope, education, jobs and housing | like the racism it sought to end, it is itself a programme based on race |
there is increasing evidence of minority students at top universities | it has led to some resentments and inequalities for the majority community |
it has helped to promote community diversity | it lowers aspirations by offering racial preferences |
it has helped promote equality of opportunity and equality of outcome | it puts minority students into academic places where they then struggle to compete and succeed |