Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

Transcript

• 00:17

  It's funny to see [INAUDIBLE]--[INAUDIBLE]

• 00:45

  Seven to one.Very, very few people expected that.Adversities favor in the sense that they had to send it backand they have to prove the case.But--These programs can remain in effectuntil they're challenged in court.So the university has the benefit of inertia.

• 01:09

  And that means that there will be no changeunless someone goes to court.And it's unclear how many people will be able to go to court.These are expensive and time-consuming lawsuitsto bring.There were some opponents of the Texas planthat wanted to eliminate all affirmative efforts to increase

• 01:29

  minority representation.That plainly did not succeed today.Indeed, surprisingly, seven Justicescame out in favor of saying that diversityin educational institutions was a positive benefit.And a university could decide if it wanted to do that.What it said today was, if a university wants

• 01:51

  to give a racial preference of any kind,it must have a very good reason for doing soand must show that there are no reasonable, workable solutionsin the alternative that would producea similar kind of diversity.No, I don't think it says anythingabout the conservativeness of the Supreme Court.Indeed, if anything, I would say it's

• 02:14

  a moderate court in its willingnessto tackle problems only incrementally and notgo for the large hit, as Justice Thomas would have doneand knocked out all these programs.We now know that we found anything new,but we found out that the court is notready to wipe off affirmative action.

• 02:34

  And I think many of the proponents of the Universityof Texas systems were afraid that that was going to happen.On the other hand, they didn't say that anything goes.And so I think that supporters of the University of Texas--I saw a statement by them today saying they'repleased with the result.As opposed to losing outright, I would be pleased also.

The term affirmative action was first used in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on March 6, 1961. The term was used to promote actions that achieve nondiscrimination. Affirmative action in higher education and employment is a contentious and often debated public policy. Historically, Asian Americans were viewed as beneficiaries of this policy. However, in contemporary political discourse, Asian Americans are often cast as the victims of a system that allows “undeserving” minorities who are given “unmerited” spots in universities and/or employment. In order to understand the complicated relationship between Asian Americans and this policy, it is essential to understand its history and the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that, “No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” This clause directed governments that all persons, without regard to race, class, creed, or gender be treated equally. It also ensured that states could not deprive any individual of the protection of their rights under the law.

In 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to insure that they were not discriminating against groups based on race or creed. In 1967, sex was added to the nondiscrimination list, therefore expanding the policy to also include women as a class for which actions should be taken to end discrimination in hiring, education, and government contracts. Under the direction of the secretary of labor, Revised Order Number 4 was issued in 1972 to mandate increased representation of groups, especially on college campuses. This order compelled universities to make a concerted effort to recruit and admit “protected classes,” namely women and minorities, to meet the goal of “proportional” representation for “underutilized” groups by developing goals and timetables, if necessary.

...