Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Since the introduction of the term in Executive Order 10479, signed by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, affirmative action has occupied a place of great hope, uncertainty, and debate within U.S. society. Over the decades, support for affirmative action has grown and waned as political currents have changed. After numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have shaped affirmative action policies, the future of the program is uncertain. As a result, many states have begun to develop alternative plans in their efforts to ensure diversity within schools. This entry defines affirmative action, summarizes the debates over its implementation, examines related federal court decisions, and outlines possible alternatives.

Defining Affirmative Action

There is no clear agreed-on definition of affirmative action. For the purposes of this selection, George E. Curry's definition, based on a report of the Civil Rights Commission, is used. Affirmative action, then, consists of “policies and programs that permit the consideration of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sex in awarding of contracts, employment, or university admissions in order to provide opportunities to a class of qualified people who have been historically or actually denied those opportunities, and to prevent further discrimination in the future.”

Originally designed to combat discrimination against African Americans, affirmative action programs have been expanded to consider other ethnic groups, including Latinos and Native Americans, as well as other minority groups such as women. Affirmative action can best be seen as a continuum of policies ranging from strict quotas that make race or gender the deciding factor to policies that indirectly increase inclusion without taking race or sex into account.

The Debate

Almost since its inception, affirmative action has been a source of great controversy within the United States. Opponents of affirmative action usually take one of three approaches, focusing on (a) unfairness to White males, (b) unfairness to minorities, or (c) general questions of unfairness. Supporters of the unfairness to White males approach claim that the policy is reverse discrimination because it denies qualified Whites the same opportunities as are available to minorities. Those who support this argument often use the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origins, and (later) gender as proof of the unconstitutionality of the policy. In addition, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fifteenth Amendment are cited to contest affirmative action policies.

Advocates of the second approach examine how affirmative action policies have a negative impact on the minorities they are designed to assist. They claim that the policy is detrimental for minorities because it puts underqualified minorities in institutions where they do not have the skills to be successful. Hence, the programs set minority students up for failure. Support for this argument can be seen in the lower graduation rates of certain minority groups such as African Americans. Another argument is that affirmative action takes away minority motivation for working hard. This position maintains that minorities will not try as hard because they know that they will get into colleges because of their minority status. Similar to the motivation issues, some argue that minorities will become demoralized because they know that they are not in college because of their own merit but rather because of their minority status. Also, affirmative action could increase racial tensions on campus because Whites may feel resentment because of the preferences given to minority groups.

...

  • 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