AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Agenda Affirmative Action power point Definition of Affirmative Action Pro-Affirmative Action Con-Affirmative action Affirmative Action Admission legislation in California Questions about Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and culture from which they have been historically excluded. When those steps involve preferential selection—selection on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity—affirmative action generates intense controversy.

The development, defense, and contestation of preferential affirmative action has proceeded along two paths. One has been legal and administrative as courts, legislatures, and executive departments of government have made and applied rules requiring affirmative action. The other has been the path of public debate, where the practice of preferential treatment has spawned a vast literature, pro and con. Often enough, the two paths have failed to make adequate contact, with the public quarrels not always very securely anchored in any existing legal basis or practice.

The ebb and flow of public controversy over affirmative action can be pictured as two spikes on a line, the first spike representing a period of passionate debate that began around 1972 and tapered off after 1980, and the second indicating a resurgence of debate in the 1990s leading up to the Supreme Court's decision in the summer of 2003 upholding certain kinds of affirmative action. The first spike encompassed controversy about gender and racial preferences alike. This is because in the beginning affirmative action was as much about the factory, the firehouse, and the corporate suite as about the college campus. The second spike represents a quarrel about race and ethnicity. This is because the burning issue at the turn of the twentieth-first century is about college admissions. In admissions to selective colleges, women need no boost; African-Americans and Hispanics do. [1]1

Pro – Affirmative Action ACLU

ACLU on Affirmative Action Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field. A centuries-long legacy of racism and sexism has not been eradicated despite the gains made during the civil rights era. Avenues of opportunity for those previously excluded remain far too narrow. We need affirmative action now more than ever. According to 1998 U.S. Department of Labor statistics, blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to be unemployed. The unemployment rate is also higher for Latinos than for whites. Blacks and Latinos generally earn far less than whites. In 2000, the median weekly earning for blacks was $459; for Latinos, it was $395. In that period, average income for whites was $590. Workers of color are still concentrated in the less well-paying, unskilled sector. In 1993, black and Latino men were half as likely as whites to be employed as managers or professionals and much more likely to be employed as machine operators and laborers. Barriers to equality also remain for women.

Obama on Affirmative Action player_detailpage player_detailpage

Con – Affirmative Action

Thomas Sowell on Affirmative Action

Reverse Racism By the early 1970s, many college admissions policies included some form of affirmative action. In 1974, the California State Legislature passed several resolutions aimed at speeding up the integration process. One of the resolutions essentially called for racial quotas, ordering the University of California to match the racial composition of its student body to that of each year's graduating high school class by But the UC schools never reached that goal, in part because of several successful legal challenges that classified affirmative action as reverse discrimination. One of the first lawsuits charging reverse discrimination failed that same year on April 23, In DeFunsis v. Odegaard, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to decide whether the constitution allowed professional schools to give preference to minority applicants. In a 5-4 ruling, the court decided that the case of Marco DeFunsis - who alleged the University of Washington Law School had denied him admission because he was white - was no longer valid because he had since been accepted to another law school and would soon graduate. But a similar case four years later would strike the first blow to racial preferences.