1 Affirmative Action

2 John F. Kennedy: Executive Order (1961) Used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity Established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity

3 Civil Rights Act (1964) Landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers Landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

4 Lyndon B. Johnson: Executive Order (1965) Required all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities Established Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor Amended in 1967 to expand employment opportunities for women

5 Richard M. Nixon: Executive Order (1971) Directed federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program Directed federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program

6 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Allan Bakke applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School and was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of 100 for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program. Bakke's qualifications exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted. Bakke contended that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

7 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? The Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission. It also ruled unlawful the University Medical School's practice of reserving seats in each entering class for disadvantaged minority students. The Supreme Court upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission. It also ruled unlawful the University Medical School's practice of reserving seats in each entering class for disadvantaged minority students.

8 Jimmy Carter: Executive Order (1979) Created a National Women's Business Enterprise Policy and requiring each agency to take affirmative action to support women's business enterprises

9 United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination.

10 United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race? Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race? The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer's workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees. The Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer's workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees.

11 President Ronald Regan: Executive Order (1983) Directed each federal agency with substantial procurement or grant making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) development plan. Directed each federal agency with substantial procurement or grant making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) development plan.

12 Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986) In 1975, a federal district court found the Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers Union guilty of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of The court established a 29 percent minority membership goal and ordered the union to implement procedures to meet the goal. In 1982 and 1983, the union was found guilty of civil contempt for disobeying the court orders. The court then established a percent nonwhite membership goal to be met by August 1987.

13 Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986) Did provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 empower courts to order race-conscious membership quotas? Did provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 empower courts to order race-conscious membership quotas? The Supreme Court upheld a judicially-ordered 29% minority "membership admission goal" for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities, confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to correct and prevent future discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld a judicially-ordered 29% minority "membership admission goal" for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities, confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to correct and prevent future discrimination.

14 Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)

15 Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)

16 Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987) The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision.

17 Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987) Did the Agency impermissibly take into account the sex of the applicants in the promotion process and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Supreme Court ruled that a severe under representation of women and minorities justified the use of race or sex as "one factor" in choosing among qualified candidates.

18 Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989) In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies awarded city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city.

19 Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989) Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The Supreme Court struck down Richmond's minority contracting program as unconstitutional, requiring that a state or local affirmative action program be supported by a "compelling interest" and be narrowly tailored to ensure that the program furthers that interest. The Supreme Court struck down Richmond's minority contracting program as unconstitutional, requiring that a state or local affirmative action program be supported by a "compelling interest" and be narrowly tailored to ensure that the program furthers that interest.

20 Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

21 Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

22 Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) Adarand, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." ] Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

23 Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? The Supreme Court held that a federal affirmative action program remains constitutional when narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest such as remedying discrimination.

24 President William Clinton: “Mend it, Don’t End it” (July 1995) President Clinton delivered this major speech in defense of Affirmative Action programs at the National Archives. “I am absolutely convinced that we cannot restore economic opportunity or solve our social problems unless we find a way to bring the American people together. And to bring our people together we must openly and honestly deal with the issues that divide us. “ “We should reaffirm the principle of affirmative action and fix the practices. We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it.”

25 Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 Senator Robert Dole and Representative Charles Canady introduced the so- called Equal Opportunity Act in Congress. Senator Robert Dole and Representative Charles Canady introduced the so- called Equal Opportunity Act in Congress. The act would prohibit race- or gender- based affirmative action in all federal programs. The act would prohibit race- or gender- based affirmative action in all federal programs.

26 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

27 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

28 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) In 1997, Barbara Grutter, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions.

29 Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of race among other factors in its law school admissions program was constitutional because the program furthered a compelling interest in obtaining “an educational benefit that flows from student body diversity”. The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan’s use of race among other factors in its law school admissions program was constitutional because the program furthered a compelling interest in obtaining “an educational benefit that flows from student body diversity”. The Court also found that the law school’s program was narrowly tailored; it was flexible, and provided for a “holistic” review of each applicant. The Court also found that the law school’s program was narrowly tailored; it was flexible, and provided for a “holistic” review of each applicant.

30 Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

31 Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

32 Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. She was denied admission and attended another school. She was denied admission and attended another school. The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus. In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus.

33 Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Supreme Court handed down its decision and rejected the undergraduate admissions program at the College of Literature, Science and the Arts, which granted points based on race and ethnicity and did not provide for a review of each applicant’s entire file.

34 Multimedia Citation Slide 1: Slide 2: Slide 3: Slide 4: Slide 5: Slide 6 - 7: Slide 8: Slide : Slide 11: Slide : Slide 14 – 17: Slide : Slide : Slide 24: Slide 25: Slide : Slide 28 – 29: Slide : Slide 32 – 33: