Stockton University of New Jersey Affirmative Action Essay -Do you agree with Affirmative Action and why it was created? -Was the college scandal involvin
Stockton University of New Jersey Affirmative Action Essay -Do you agree with Affirmative Action and why it was created?
-Was the college scandal involving wealthy parents discrimination?
-Compare/contrast how the college scandal and AA.
-Explain the dynamic of Reverse Affirmative Action and how it is working in South Africa. Include history of apartheid to get a full understanding of how reverse affirmative action works.
Essay Format:
Pages: 3-4 pages
Font: 12 Font
Line Spacing: 1.5 line spacing
Cite all sources using APA format
Links provided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDOyTQPOCjg
https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-eliminating-affirmative-action-minority-and-female-employment-natural-experiment-approach
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/07/07/626500660/everything-that-s-going-on-with-race-ethnicity-and-school-admissions-right-now
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/us/lori-loughlin-parents-accusations/index.html
Do not need to use all links. Affirmative Action
Get Email Updates
Search
Go
Follow
Like 13,618 people like this. Be the first of
your friends.
About Us
About Us
Press Room
Sign Up
Take Action
Donate Now
Home > Civil Rights History > Civil Rights 101 >
Affirmative Action
Sign Up
Take Action
Donate Now
Get Informed:
Issues
Affirmative Action
Publications
Background
Civil Rights History
Civil Rights 101
Timeline
Glossary
Book Club
Resources:
Calendar
Career Center
As President Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains
and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others,
and still just believe that you have been completely fair.”
President Johnson’s speech eloquently stated the rationale behind the contemporary use of affirmative action
programs to achieve equal opportunity, especially in the fields of employment and higher education.
News Feeds
Our Coalition
Coalition Members
Board of Directors
Member Resources
Part One:
Civil Rights: A
Chronology
Civil Rights Glossary
Demographics
Part Two:
The emphasis is on opportunity: affirmative action programs are meant to break down barriers, both visible and
invisible, to level the playing field, and to make sure everyone is given an equal break. They are not meant to
guarantee equal results — but instead proceed on the common-sense notion that if equality of opportunity were a
reality, African Americans, women, people with disabilities and other groups facing discrimination would be fairly
represented in the nation’s work force and educational institutions.
Law and Policy
The debate over affirmative action demarcates a philosophical divide, separating those with sharply different views of
the “American dilemma” — how the nation should treat African Americans, other people of color and women. This
division centers on a number of questions: to what extent discrimination and bias persist, especially in a systemic
way; to what degree affirmative action programs have been effective in providing otherwise unavailable opportunities
in education, employment, and business; and to what extent affirmative action programs appear to unduly benefit
African Americans and other people of color at the expense of the white majority.
Employment
Discrimination
Press Room
Advocacy
Civil Rights 101
Table of Contents
The Supreme Court and
Civil Rights
School Desegregation
Housing
Affirmative Action
Voting
Criminal Justice
Part Three:
The continuing need for affirmative action is demonstrated by the data. For example, the National Asian and Pacific
American Legal Consortium reports that although white men make up only 48% of the college-educated workforce,
they hold over 90% of the top jobs in the news media, 96% of CEO positions, 86% of law firm partnerships, and 85%
of tenured college faculty positions.
Civil Rights Expanded
Women
People with Disabilities
Gays and Lesbians
Our Members
Affirmative action is not, as some critics charge, a uniquely modern concept fashioned by contemporary liberals in
defiance of history or tradition. Although the techniques that we now call “affirmative action” are of fairly recent
design, the conceptual recognition of the need to take affirmative, or positive legal action to redress discrimination’s
impact, rather than simply ending discrimination, has been around since the Civil War. During Reconstruction (the
period immediately after the Civil War), the Constitution was amended and other federal initiatives, such as the
creation of the Freedman’s Bureau, were undertaken to establish equal opportunity for the former slaves. These
initiatives were at least modestly successful, bringing about African American participation in elections for the first
time.
Sporadic efforts to remedy the results of hundreds of years of slavery, segregation and denial of opportunity
have been made since the end of the Civil War.
Native Americans
Age
Religion
Civil liberties
Labor movement
Asians
Latinos
Part Four:
Race, Class and
Economic Justice
A significant number of African Americans held public office, including two U.S. senators and 20 members of the
House, between 1870 and 1900. But when the federal government withdrew its support for Reconstruction in the late 1800s, the gains made by
African Americans were quickly stripped away and replaced by a patchwork system of legal segregation (including, in some instances, legal
segregation of Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans as well). By 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court had upheld the cornerstone
segregationist doctrine of “separate but equal” – i.e., ruling that the Constitution permitted governments to require separation of the races in
schools, public transportation, and elsewhere, so long as the opportunities offered the separate races were characterized as equal.
In the modern era, the concept of affirmative action was reborn on June 25, 1941, when President Franklin Roosevelt — seeking to avert a march
on Washington organized by civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randolph — issued Executive Order 8802 requiring defense contractors to pledge
nondiscrimination in employment in government-funded projects. Two years later, President Roosevelt extended coverage of the executive order
to all federal contractors and subcontractors. In a 1947 report, the President’s Committee on Fair Employment Practices found that, while African
Americans comprised only three percent of the workers in defense industries in 1942, their number had increased to eight percent in 1945. But it
also found “the wartime gains of Negro, Mexican-American and Jewish workers . . . began to disappear as soon as wartime controls were relaxed.”
Successive presidents, under pressure from the African American community and civil rights advocates, continued the effort to increase minority
employment opportunities and end job discrimination. It was not until President Kennedy issued Executive Order No. 10925, requiring not only that
http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/affirmaction.html[7/21/2015 2:34:21 PM]
Affirmative Action
federal contractors pledge non-discrimination but that they “take affirmative action to ensure” equal opportunity, that the now-fractious phrase
came into popular discourse. Kennedy’s order also included penalties — including suspension of a contract — for non-compliance. This was
succeeded by another executive order (Executive Order 11246) issued by President Lyndon Johnson, along with the creation of the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance in the Department of Labor to enforce its non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements. The Executive
Order was amended in 1967 to include prohibitions on sex discrimination by federal contractors, along with a requirement that they engage in good
faith efforts to expand job opportunities for women. Executive Order 11246 remains among the most effective and far-reaching federal programs
for expanding equal opportunity.
Implementation of affirmative action started slowly, with the construction industry the site of one of the first tests. In 1965, the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance created government-wide programs to redress the years of discrimination in the construction industry. The series of
affirmative action programs was designed to boost minority employment by emphasizing hiring results in federally funded construction jobs.
In the 1970s, The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 called for “the preferential employment of disabled veterans and
veterans of the Vietnam era … who are otherwise qualified.” The act was amended a year later to require federal agencies and contractors to take
affirmative action in employment and promotion for people with disabilities. These changes underscored the use of affirmative action as a
balancing of competitive interests. Affirmative action was understood to be the creation of opportunities to compete and not an assurance of
outcome or success.
The various programs culminated in the “Philadelphia Plan,” implemented under President Nixon. This plan required contractors doing business
with the federal government to commit themselves to self-determined numerical goals for minority. By withstanding challenges both in Congress
and the courts, the Philadelphia Plan helped establish affirmative action as a way of life for American employers. Indeed, employers often
embraced affirmative action as a good business practice, enabling them to tap into larger, more diverse, and more qualified pools of talent.
A key example of business support for affirmative action came early in Ronald Reagan’s second term and from what would be considered a very
unlikely source — the conservative National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which represents 13,500 companies. At issue was a split in the
administration over proposals by President Reagan’s most conservative appointees to revise and weaken Executive Order 11246 requiring
employers with federal contracts to take positive steps — including establishing goals and timetables — to include minorities and women in their
work force.
NAM, much to the surprise of the administration’s conservatives, weighed in on behalf of keeping the executive order intact. In a letter to President
Reagan, the business group said it “believes the current executive order provides the framework for an affirmative action policy” and argued that
“the business community is concerned that the elimination of goals and timetables could result in confusing compliance standards on federal, state
and municipal levels and a proliferation of reverse discrimination suits.”
Terms in the Debate
The debate over affirmative action has swirled around a cluster of highly charged words, the use of which sometimes obscures, rather than
enlightens, the discussion. It is important to note that affirmative action may come into play as a remedy where discrimination is acknowledged or
has been found to exist.
Affirmative action itself has been defined as “any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or
compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future.” (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Statement on Affirmative Action, October 1977.) Affirmative action means taking positive steps to end discrimination, to prevent its recurrence, and
to creative new opportunities that were previously denied minorities and women.
An oft-used — and deliberately misused — term in the lexicon of affirmative action is “quotas.” President George Bush, for example, in vetoing the
Civil Rights Bill of 1991, labeled it “a quota bill,” and opponents of affirmative action use the word as a general pejorative to taint all race-conscious
remedies for discrimination. The courts, however, have provided a more accurate and precise definition: an absolute requirement that an employer
hire a certain number of or percentage of employees from a specified group, without regard to the availability of qualified candidates or the
presence of more qualified members of other groups. Such quotas are legally impermissible and are not a component of lawful affirmative action
programs.
What affirmative action does sometimes involve is the establishment of a numerically expressed hiring goal, often in connection with a timetable.
Indeed, as mentioned above, the Executive Order 11246 program covering federal contractors relies on the use of goals and timetables. Having
established a goal, which is tied to the availability of qualified and available minority workers in the labor market, the employer pledges a “good
faith” effort to achieve the goal within an aspirational timetable. Failure to achieve the goal, however, does not, in and of itself, subject the employer
to sanctions unless the affirmative action has been judicially ordered as a remedy to illegal discrimination. “Goals,” the Citizens’ Commission on
Civil Rights has observed, “serve as one measure of nondiscrimination and of the effectiveness of affirmation action efforts, not as a mandate for
minority or female employment.”
Affirmative Action & The Courts
The Supreme Court first addressed affirmative action in three key cases in the late 1970s:
1978: In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that the University’s special admission program setting aside a
fixed number of seats for minorities at its medical school violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination by federally
funded programs). At the same time, however, in an opinion written by Justice Powell, it ruled that race could lawfully be considered as one of
several factors in making admissions decisions. In his opinion, Justice Powell noted that lawful affirmative action programs may be based on
reasons other than redressing past discrimination — in particular, a university’s educational interest in attaining a diverse student body could justify
appropriate affirmative action programs.
1979: United Steelworkers of America v. Weber involved a new in-plant training program for workers at a Louisiana plant that had hired few
minorities in skilled positions. The employer and the union had agreed that 50 percent of the positions in the training program would go to African
American employees and 50 percent to whites. Within each group, positions would be filled on the basis of seniority, meaning some junior African
Americans would be admitted ahead of more senior whites.
In rejecting the claims of a white employee that the program violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Court said the law allowed affirmative
action by private parties “to eliminate traditional patterns of racial segregation”. One test of lawfulness was whether the program “unduly” trampled
on the interests of white workers. The Court held that the plan passed the test because it did not require firing any white workers, nor did it create
http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/affirmaction.html[7/21/2015 2:34:21 PM]
Affirmative Action
an “absolute bar” to white advancement. The plan was also permissible because it was “a temporary measure; it [was] not intended to maintain
racial balance, but simply to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance.”
1980: In Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court upheld a congressionally- enacted 10 percent minority business set-aside of federal funds for
state and local public works. In the ruling, the Court stressed the remedial nature of the set-aside, with Chief Justice Burger writing that the
program “was designed to ensure that … grantees … would not employ procurement practices that Congress had decided might result in
perpetuation of the effects of prior discrimination which had impaired or foreclosed access by minority business to public contracting opportunities.”
The Supreme Court continued to wrestle with the difficult issue of balance into the 1980s. In Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department (1984) the Court
took on the hard issue of whether seniority would determine the order of layoffs in the Memphis fire department even at the cost of wiping out
affirmative action. It ruled that Title VII “precludes a district court from displacing a non-minority employee with seniority under the contractually
established seniority system absent either a finding that the seniority system was adopted with discriminatory intent or a determination that such a
remedy was necessary to make whole a proven victim of discrimination.” The decision did not, however, prevent the use of affirmative action in
hiring and promotion situations, as the Court apparently viewed displacing white workers from their jobs as far more serious than simply
disappointing their hopes for a new opportunity.
Even before the ruling in stotts, the Reagan Justice Department, under Assistant Attorney General William Bradford Reynolds, had abandoned the
department’s traditionally vigorous enforcement of federal equal employment laws. In 1987 testimony before Congress, Reynolds said the
department would end the use of any goals and timetables as a remedy to correct discrimination — a stance the department carried into its court
cases, relying almost exclusively on recruitment programs as remedies for employment discrimination, but refusing to look at the number of
minorities or women actually hired or promoted.
At the same time, Reynolds and the department sought to undo the affirmative action remedies that had been agreed to prior to the Reagan
administration. Reynolds construed Stotts as holding that any form of race or gender-conscious relief were impermissible. These views were
rejected by the courts.
The court in 1986 again emphasized that lawful affirmative action programs cannot require that male workers be discharged to make way for
female workers. In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, the Court held that a public employer may not lay off more senior white workers to
protect the jobs of less senior black workers. Men and whites cannot be excluded from consideration for opportunities; all candidates must have
the chance to compete and have their qualifications compared to others.
Two of the court’s 1987 rulings — U.S. v. Paradise and Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency — further dealt with Title VII and
affirmative action plans. In Paradise, the Court upheld a one-for-one promotion requirement (i.e., for every white candidate promoted, a qualified
African American would also be promoted) in the Alabama Department of Public Safety, finding it to be narrowly tailored and necessary to
eliminate the effects of Alabama’s long-term discrimination which the lower court had found “blatant and continuous.” The Justice Department,
which had originally intervened in the suit in the 1970s on the side of the African American plaintiff, switched sides during the Reagan
administration.
In the second case, Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, the Court upheld an employer’s affirmative action plan that allowed
gender to be considered as a positive factor when choosing among qualified candidates for jobs in which women were severely underrepresented.
The employer developed its plan after its review found that no women were employed in any of its 238 skilled craft jobs. Both Paul Johnson (the
male plaintiff claiming reverse discrimination) and Diane Joyce (the woman who ultimately received the promotion to road dispatcher) had the
requisite four years’ experience, although Ms. Joyce’s experience was more recent and arguably more relevant. Mr. Johnson received a score of
75 to Ms. Joyce’s 73 in the graded oral interview, where 70 was a passing score. The Court upheld the county’s use of Ms. Joyce’s gender as a
positive factor in choosing between these similarly-qualified candidates — especially since no woman had ever held the position of road dispatcher.
By 1989, the composition of the Supreme Court had changed and now included a strong majority of justices suspicious, if not downright hostile, to
affirmative action. That hostility was evidenced in the Court’s ruling in City of Richmond v. Croson, invalidating Richmond, Virginia’s local ordinance
establishing a minority business set-aside program.
In Croson, for the first time, the Court adopted the strict scrutiny standard of review demanding that an affirmative action program be supported by
a “compelling government interest” and narrowly tailored to ensure the program fits that interest. While not rejecting all governmental raceconscious remedies, the Court set a very high standard for their continued use by state and local governments.
The court extended this tough standard in its 1995 ruling in Adarand Constructors v. Pena, a 5-4 decision holding that strict scrutiny would also
apply to federal affirmative action programs (although leaving open some issues, such as the degree of deferen…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
