Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The origins of affirmative action lie in a 1965 executive order issued by U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that required federal contractors to develop policies to combat discrimination. Since this order, several U.S. policies and laws have encouraged or required corporations and other institutions to advertise jobs fairly and to promote the hiring and promotion of members of groups formerly discriminated, most notably women and minority ethnic groups. Implementation of both the letter and the spirit of these federal requirements has often involved employment goals and targeted employment outcomes intended to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination. These goals and policies are the core of affirmative action.

Target goals, timetables, and quotas were originally initiated to ensure more equitable opportunities by counterbalancing apparently intractable prejudice and systemic favoritism. Over the years, many policies initiated with these lofty ambitions were criticized on grounds that they establish quotas that unjustifiably elevate the opportunities of members of targeted groups, discriminate against equally qualified or even more qualified members of majorities, and perpetuate racial and sexual paternalism. The problem of affirmative action is whether such policies can be justified and, if so, under which conditions. At its roots, this problem is moral rather than legal. However, the most influential arguments have been legal ones advanced in the opinions of judges.

What does “Affirmative Action” Mean?

The term affirmative action refers to positive steps to rank, admit, hire, or promote persons who are members of groups previously or presently discriminated against. It has been used to refer to everything from open advertisement of positions to quotas in employment and promotion.

The original meaning of affirmative action was minimalist. It referred to plans to safeguard equal opportunity, advertise positions openly, ensure fair recruitment, and create scholarship programs for specific groups. Few now oppose these means to the end of equal treatment, and if this were all that were meant by affirmative action, few would oppose it.

However, affirmative action has acquired broader meanings—some advanced by proponents, others by opponents. Most important, it became closely associated—especially through its opponents—with quotas and preferential policies that target specific groups, primarily women and minorities, for preferential treatment. Stern critics of affirmative action hold that affirmative action today means little more than naked preference by race. Proponents of affirmative action wholly reject this suggestion. They see affirmative action as confined to policies that favor qualified women and minority candidates over similarly qualified men or nonminority candidates, where there is an immediate objective of remedying persistent discrimination, achieving diversity, and achieving a race- and color-blind society.

Criticism of affirmative action policies has often centered on the alleged use of quotas. Quota here refers to fixed numbers of a group that must be admitted, hired, or promoted—even to the point of including less qualified persons if they are the only available members of a targeted group. However, the term quota originally was not used with this meaning. Quotas were understood as target numbers or percentages that an employer, admissions office, recruitment committee, and the like sincerely attempts to meet. In this second sense, quotas are numerically expressible goals pursued in good faith and with due diligence, but they do not require advancing unqualified or even less qualified persons.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading