1. What is Affirmative Action? 1961 – President Kennedy implements affirmative action executive orders directing federal agencies to pursue a policy of minority employment in federal civil service in companies doing business with the federal government – becomes a goal in the 1970s for colleges and some private employers (especially if looking for federal and state contracts)

2. Affirmative ActionWhat is it? Compensatory action to overcome the consequences of past discrimination and to encourage greater diversity (possible practices have included different admission or hiring standards and quotas) The set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color religion, sex or national origin. Usually applied in job hiring, college admissions, and awarding government contracts.

3. THREE FORMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: 1.Quotas 2.Preferential Treatment 3.Outreach (recruiting)

4. THREE FORMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTIONCourt cases: 1.Quotas – GONE! via Bakke decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) – a rigid quota system is a violation but the goal of having a diverse student body is a compelling purpose (so race can be taken into account but not as part of a rigid formula) Court in 1979 & 1980 upholds Affirmative Action plans

5. Cases and legislation Adarand Constructors v Pena (1995) – race-based policies (such as preferring to give federal contacts to minority- owned businesses) must be examined under a strict scrutiny standard (ie must be a compelling state interest) Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996) – the fifth circuit finds that race could never be used in the admissions process – Sup. Court refuses to hear the case so only applies to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi – Texas responds by saying that top 10 percent of classes automatically get admission Proposition 209 in 1996 – Californians ban race and gender preferences in state programs and university admissions – 54 percent passage rate, including 27 percent of the black vote, 30 percent of the Latino vote, 45 percent of the Asian American vote – Sup. Court refuses to hear challenge of the law

6. Court cases – Affirmative Action 2. Preferential Treatment –On life support UMichigan law school case Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) – 5-4 – The affirmative action policy at the University of Michigans law school is upheld that takes race into account. The justices ruled that a diverse student body is a compelling state interest. The law school took race into account in considering admissions, looking for a critical mass of minority members, but looked at applicants at a case-by-case basis. This case did not affect California and Washington initiatives that banned affirmative action at the state level. The majority opinion (written by OConnor) noted that some day affirmative action may not be necessary. Gratz v Bollinger (2003) – 6-3 – The court struck down the affirmative action policy for undergraduate admissions for the University of Michigan, which awards 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans on an admissions rating scale. This system was seen as too mechanized, with race often the only distinction that determined admission or rejection. Outreach (recruiting)-- OK

7. CasesPreferential treatment Gratz v Bollinger (2003) – 6-3 – The court struck down the affirmative action policy for undergraduate admissions for the University of Michigan, which awards 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans on an admissions rating scale. This system was seen as too mechanized, with race often the only distinction that determined admission or rejection. 3. Outreach (recruiting)-- OK

8. A candidate for college admissions to consider 3.25 High School GPA Approximately 1200 SAT scores : 566 verbal and 640 math. High School activities: Baseball; Cheerleader captain. College choices: Yale, Harvard, U Texas Your decision?

9. One other thing… Both father and grandfather are alumni

10. Harvard 2006: 9.3% of all applicants admitted. In 2003: 40% of alumni applicants admitted Harvard says it no longer tracks such applicants.