America Becoming Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume I (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
11. Affirmative Action: Legislative History, Jhudicial Interpretations, Public Consensus
11. Affirmative Action: Legislative History, Jhudicial Interpretations, Public Consensus
Pages 318-347
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 318... ...
"Agreement" includes a shared unease about programs involving overt racial preferences coupled with a willingness to support outreach programs as well as programs that benefit the disadvantaged, and certain other types of affirmative-action initiatives. Identifying and building on this agreement and consensus is a necessary first step in the development of any successful race-related public policy in a multiracial society, such as our own.
|
From page 319... ...
offers a somewhat broader definition is offered that involves a "range of governmental and private initiatives that offer preferential treatment to members of designated racial or ethnic minority groups (or to other groups thought to be disadvantaged) , usually as a means of compensating them for the effects of past and present discrimination." Both of these definitions suggest a compensatory rationale for affirmative-action programs i.e., members of groups previously disadvantaged are now to receive the just compensation that is their due in order to make it easier for them to get along in the world.
|
From page 320... ...
In the face of increased White-initiated violence in the South, and mounting pressure from civil rights leaders, Kennedy appealed to Congress to pass legislation mandating equal rights and equal access to all in all public accommodations and jobs in what was, at the time, hailed as "the civil rights bill of the century." The Kennedy-proposed Civil Rights legislation, however, was too drastic for a Congress that was still, to a considerable extent, controlled by southern Democrats. It took the combination of the sympathy generated by Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, the formidable legislative skills of President Lyndon B
|
From page 321... ...
Both Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were instrumental in moving the country away from "soft" affirmative-action programs, that merely required employers and other private parties to make special efforts to recruit members of previously excluded groups, toward stronger policies mandating preferential treatment of women and minorities. Under these presidents, federal goals began to shift from equal opportunity as defined in the Civil Rights legislation to an emphasis on equal (or proportional)
|
From page 322... ...
subsequently issued Revised Order #4 that, in effect, amended Tohnson's Executive Order 11246 by extending the quotalike features of the Philadelphia Plan to all private contractors doing business with the federal government. Contractors were now required to establish target "goals and timetables" for the hiring of "underutilized" minority group members and women, and to show "good faith efforts" to meet these hiring goals and timetables.
|
From page 323... ...
424, 1971) , an early employment discrimination case, in which the Court ruled unanimously that under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, any screening device that produced unequal consequences for different races i.e., what in employment law came to be known as "disparate impact" in the sense of disproportionate group harm would be held to constitute invidious employment discrimination unless the screening device were shown to be clearly job-related.
|
From page 324... ...
Charges of "reverse discrimination" became common during the 1970s, as more and more corporations and private businesses, often under pressure from federal enforcement agencies, began more aggressive hiring of minorities and women. The question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also protected Whites against discrimination arose in McDonald v.
|
From page 325... ...
The decree attempted to protect newly hired Black workers from the "last hired, first fired" layoff policy by ruling that the use of the seniority system was illegitimate. The Supreme Court found the district court in violation of Title VII and modified the consent decree.
|
From page 326... ...
That provision required that 10 percent of federal funds allocated to state and local governments for public works projects be used to purchase goods and services from companies owned by members of six specified minority groups. The Court held in this case that the federal set-aside law did not violate the equal protection provisions of the federal Constitution on the grounds that the set-aside provision was a legitimate remedy for present competitive disadvantages resulting from past illegal discrimination.
|
From page 327... ...
Beginning in the late 1960s, many universities and professional schools began admitting minority students, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, with substantially lower grades and lower scores on standardized tests than White students. Many White students charged "reverse discrimination," and some brought suit in federal court, claiming that affirmative action in higher education was a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as of the equal protection provisions of the U.S.
|
From page 328... ...
Borrowing from the activist strategy of civil rights groups, two public interest law firms, the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) and the Institute of Justice, recruited aggrieved White students to file reverse discrimination suits against institutions of higher learning.
|
From page 329... ...
But a new twist was introduced in 1997 when two White undergraduates, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, filed racial discrimination suits against the University of Michigan and its administrators alleging discrimination in the university's undergraduate program. At roughly the same time, White applicant Barbara Grutter sued the University of Michigan Law School, also charging reverse discrimination.
|
From page 330... ...
A development of even greater national significance occurred in California in 1995, when two academics, Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, started the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) , a ballot proposal outlawing government-sponsored racial preferences, which became Proposition 209.
|
From page 331... ...
MEASURING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION It is generally believed that White Americans oppose, whereas Blacks enthusiastically embrace, affirmative-action programs. Racial polarization is seen as characterizing the dominant views of both groups, and there are survey data to support this view.
|
From page 332... ...
Stoker found considerable support for compensatory measures based on the proven discrimination scenario; she also notes that proven discrimination is the only instance for which the Supreme Court in recent years has endorsed the use of quotas. White support for racial quotas was weakest on Question 2, where quotas are being used to remedy underrepresentation.
|
From page 333... ...
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional years ago and that Congress banned with its passage of the 1991 Civil Rights Act. Many White Americans who are incensed by such policies are unaware that they are illegal and, in fact, probably think that quotas are an essential part of affirmative-action programs.
|
From page 334... ...
Which point comes closest to how you feel on this matter? Eighty-three percent of White respondents and 64 percent of Black respondents said that ability, as determined by test scores, should be the main consideration in employment and college admissions decisions.
|
From page 335... ...
. On another question, a majority of the three groups opposed preferential treatment in college admissions.
|
From page 336... ...
A further demographic breakdown showed that a majority of Black baby boomers, Black men, college-educated Blacks, and Blacks earning more than $15,000 per year opposed preferential treatment (Bositis, 1997a)
|
From page 337... ...
To remove race differentials purported to be inherent in standardized tests, social scientists such as William Julius Wilson (1999) argue in favor of flexible merit-based criteria in college admissions that would de-emphasize standardized test scores and take into consideration some combination of race and class.
|
From page 338... ...
college admission tests." The interviewer next asks, "Based on what I have told you about these two students, which one do you think the college should admit? " After respondents have given their answer, they are asked "Regardless of who you think should be admitted, which student do you think the college would probably admit?
|
From page 339... ...
The majority do not believe that diversity enhancement is a compelling reason for racial preferences in college admissions, or that being Black is equivalent to being disadvantaged. A December 1997 New York Times-CBS poll of a random sample of the U.S.
|
From page 340... ...
Clearly, Whites and Blacks can agree on helping the disadvantaged in many important situations; this has obvious implications for public policies. Fifty-nine percent of White respondents in the NYT-CBS Poll favored special educational programs to help minorities compete more effectively for college admissions, 64 percent favored job-training programs for minorities in industries where they were underrepresented, and 65 percent endorsed laws to protect minorities against racial discrimination.
|
From page 341... ...
Americans seem to be asking them to take into consideration more factors than academic preparation alone. At the same time, neither Whites nor Blacks believe that racial preferences should play a significant role in college admissions decisions.
|
From page 342... ...
Cognitive schemes of this type color how a person views the world. For a White person, the schema used to interpret affirmative action might include direct experience with reverse discrimination, as well as prejudicial observations about minorities based on stereotypes.
|
From page 343... ...
Thus, their vastly different perceptions make it difficult for the two groups to communicate. One thing that might help close the gap in perception is studies that can identify and expose hidden racism and discrimination in housing, employment, police actions, and college admissions.
|
From page 344... ...
How Americans feel about affirmative-action programs depends on a number of factors, including who the beneficiaries of the program are and whether the program was adopted to address proven discrimination. Neither Whites nor Blacks are enthusiastic supporters of racial preference programs; however, both groups favor creating opportunities and helping disadvantaged people.
|
From page 345... ...
Public Opinion Quarterly 52:53-83. 1988b The effects of race of interviewer on race-related attitudes of Black respondents in SRC/CPS national election studies.
|
From page 346... ...
1990 The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
|
From page 347... ...
Wotipka 2001 Understanding racial polarization on affirmative action issues: The view from forth- focus groups. In Color Lines: Affirmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights Opcoming lions for America, J
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.