Crime of apartheid The term apartheid, from Afrikaans for "apartness," was the official name of the South African system of racial segregation which existed after 1948. Complaints about the system were brought to the United Nations as early as 12 July 1948 when Dr. Padmanabha Pillai, the representative of India to the United Nations, circulated a letter to · CERD The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is a United Nations convention. A second-generation human rights instrument, the Convention commits its members to the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races. Controversially, the Convention also requires its · CEDAW The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women is an international convention adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it came into force on 3 September 1981. The United States is the only developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW. Several · CDE Convention against Discrimination in Education is a convention adopted by UNESCO in 1960 aiming to combat segregation and discrimination in the field of education. It has entered into force in 1962. There is an additional Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good offices Commission, adopted in 1962 and entering force in 1968. As of March, 2010, · ILO C111 Discrimination Convention, 1958 is an International Labour Organization Convention · ILO C100 Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 is an International Labour Organization Convention · ILO C169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 is an International Labour Organization Convention, also known as ILO-convention 169, or C169. It is the major binding international convention concerning indigenous peoples, and a forerunner of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples · Protocol No. 12 ECHR Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an anti-discrimination treaty of the Council of Europe. It was adopted on November 4, 2000, in Rome and entered into force on April 1, 2005, after tenth ratification. As of February, 2010, it has 17 member states and 20 signatories (from 47 CoE member

Adultcentrism CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR · Androcentrism Androcentrism is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing male human beings or the masculine point of view at the center of one's view of the world and its culture and history. The related adjective is androcentric, while the opposite of androcentrism is gynocentrism · Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism is a concept that human beings may regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe, or that they assess reality through an exclusively human perspective. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are Afrocentrism Afrocentrism, Afrocentricity, or Africentrism is a world view which emphasizes the importance of African people, taken as a single group and often equated with "Black people", in culture, philosophy, and history. The roots of Afrocentrism lay in a reaction to the repression of Black people throughout the Western world in the 19th century · Americentrism Americentrism is a pejorative term referring to the ethnocentric practice of viewing the world from an explicitly American perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of American culture · Chronocentrism It is in one sense the interpretation of events and actions of other times within the moral context of one's own time. For example, a slave owner in the 1700s who treated his slaves like free estate workers and arranged for them to be freed at his death was unusually enlightened when viewed within the proper context of his time, but someone guilty · Eurocentrism Eurocentrism is a term coined during the period of decolonization in the later 20th century to refer to the practice of viewing the world from a European perspective, with an implied belief, either consciously or subconsciously, in the preeminence of European culture. The term Eurocentrism implies criticism of the concerns and values at the Black supremacy Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR · Christian supremacy This arrangement worked to the financial benefit of the Roman Catholic Church, but other powers would continue to cite a moral duty to spread the faith, without such a direct benefit to churches. In 1899 United States president William McKinley told a group of clergymen his justification for ordering a military occupation of the Philippines: · White supremacy Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR Caste A caste is a combined social system of occupation, endogamy, culture, social class, and political power. Caste should not be confused with class, in that members of a caste are deemed to be alike in function or culture, whereas not all members of a defined class may be so alike · Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. The ethnocentric individual will judge other groups relative to his or her own particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior, customs, and religion · Gynocentrism Gynocentrism is a belief system whereby the perceptions, needs and desires of women have primacy. In this system, the female view is the reference point or lens through which matters are analysed · Indigenism Indigenism is a kind of ethnic nationalism emphasizing the group's indigeneity to their homeland. This may be embraced by post-colonial anarchism as well as in neo-völkisch or national mysticist nationalism building on historical or pseudohistorical claims of ethnic continuity. While New World movements usually go by the name indigenism , the Economic Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR · Genetic Genetic discrimination occurs when people are treated differently by their employer or insurance company because they have a gene mutation that causes or increases the risk of an inherited disorder. People who undergo genetic testing may be at risk for genetic discrimination · Sinocentrism Sinocentrism is any ethnocentric perspective that regards China to be the center of civilization which is superior to all other nations. This belief was popular among the Chinese elites up to Qing dynasty; however it is not so widely popular among Chinese in present day. In pre-modern times however, this took the form of viewing China as the only Linguistic Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR · Religious Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe. A concept like that of 'religious discrimination' is necessary to take into account ambiguities of the term religious persecution. The infamous cases in which people have been executed for beliefs perceived to be heretic are · Xenocentrism Xenocentrism is a political neologism, coined as the antonym of Ethnocentrism. Xenocentrism is the preference for the products, styles, or ideas of someone else's culture rather than of one's own. The 18th Century Primitivism movement in European art and philosophy, and its concept of the Noble savage is an example of xenocentrism

Bigotry CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR · Diversity The term diversity is a form of euphemistic shorthand to describe differences in racial or ethnic classifications, age, gender, religion, philosophy, physical abilities, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, gender identity, intelligence, mental health, physical health, genetic attributes, behavior, attractiveness, cultural values, or · Eugenics Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Advocates of eugenics sought to counter what they regarded as dysgenic dynamics within the human gene pool. Specifically, Hatred Hatred is an intense feeling of dislike. It may occur in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects or animals, to hatred of oneself or other people, entire groups of people, people in general, existence, or everything. Though not always, hatred is often associated with feelings of anger · Multiculturalism Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations. In this context, multiculturalists advocate extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without · Oppression Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. It can also be defined as an act or instance of oppressing, the state of being oppressed, and the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, and anxiety Political correctness Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative, while the term politically incorrect has been · Prejudice A prejudice is a prejudgment: i.e. a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment made without recourse to reason; drawing typically instead upon received information or upon instinctual preference. The word prejudice is most commonly used to refer to a preconceived judgment toward a people or a person because of race, social class, gender, ethnicity, Stereotype A stereotype is a commonly held public belief about specific social groups or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions. Generally speaking, · Tolerance In social, cultural and religious contexts, toleration and tolerance are terms used to describe attitudes which are "tolerant" of practices or group memberships that may be disapproved of by those in the majority. In practice, "tolerance" indicates support for practices that prohibit ethnic and religious discrimination

In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first federal law designed to protect most U.S. employees from employment discrimination based upon that employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq.) The Title also established the U.S. Equal Employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment, on the basis of "colour, religion, sex, or national origin"^[1][2]. Examples of affirmative action offered by the United States Department of Labor The United States Department of Labor is a Cabinet department of the United States government responsible for occupational safety, wage and hour standards, unemployment insurance benefits, re-employment services, and some economic statistics. Many U.S. states also have such departments. The department is headed by the United States Secretary of include outreach Outreach is an effort by individuals in an organization or group to connect its ideas or practices to the efforts of other organizations, groups, specific audiences or the general public. Unlike marketing, outreach does not inherently revolve around a product or strategies to increase market share. Typically non-profits, civic groups, and churches campaigns, targeted recruitment Recruitment refers to the process of attracting, screening, and selecting qualified people for a job at an organization or firm. For some components of the recruitment process, mid- and large-size organizations often retain professional recruiters or outsource some of the process to recruitment agencies, employee and management development, and employee support programs.^[2]

The impetus towards affirmative action is to redress the disadvantages^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]} associated with overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities A university is an institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees in a variety of subjects. A university is a corporation that provides both undergraduate education and postgraduate education. The word university is derived from the Latin universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of, hospitals A hospital, in the modern sense of the word, is an institution for health care providing patient treatment by specialized staff and equipment, and often, but not always providing for longer-term patient stays. Its historical meaning, until relatively recent times, was "a place of hospitality", for example the Chelsea Royal Hospital,, and police The police are persons empowered to enforce the law, protect property and reduce civil disorder. Their powers include the legitimized use of force. The term is most commonly associated with police services of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of that state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. Police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve ^[8]. Affirmative action is a subject of controversy. Some policies adopted as affirmative action, such as racial quotas Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR or gender quotas for collegiate admission, have been criticised as a form of "reverse discrimination Crime of apartheid · CERD · CEDAW · CDE · ILO C111 · ILO C100 · ILO C169 · Protocol No. 12 ECHR".^[9]

History of term

Affirmative action in the US began as a tool to address the persisting inequalities for African Americans in the 1960s. This specific term was first used to describe US government policy in 1961. Directed to all government contracting agencies, President John F. Kennedy John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy , often referred to by his initials JFK, was the 35th President of the United States, serving from 1961 until his assassination in 1963's Executive Order 10925 mandated "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."^[10]

Four years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson Lyndon Baines Johnson , often referred to as LBJ, served as the 36th President of the United States from 1963 to 1969 after his service as the 37th Vice President of the United States from 1961 to 1963. He served in all four federal elected offices of the United States: Representative, Senator, Vice President and President elaborated on the importance of affirmative action to achieving true freedom for African Americans:

After describing the specific historical context of American affirmative action, President Johnson outlined the basic social science view that supports such policies:

As the social science explaining impact of such 'unseen forces' has developed, affirmative action has widened in scope. In 1967, President Johnson amended a previous executive order on equal employment opportunity to expressly mention "discrimination on account of sex" as well.^[12]

One of the United States' first major applications of affirmative action, the Philadelphia Plan, was enacted by the Nixon administration in 1969. The Revised Philadelphia Plan was controversial for its use of strict quotas and timetables to combat the institutionalized discrimination in the hiring practices of Philadelphia's skilled trade unions.

The concept and application of affirmative action has developed since its inception, though its motivation remains the same.

Legal history

• 1866 - The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

mandates that no State "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.." This Clause grants citizens the protection of their Fifth Amendment rights from state actors.

• 1954 - Brown v. Board of Education

The NAACP filed on behalf of a black student, Linda Brown, who was transported out of her white neighborhood to attend a black school in Topeka, Kansas. The Supreme Court ruled that separate educational facilities were "inherently unequal" and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The next year the Court ordered segregated districts to integrate with "all deliberate speed."

• 1961 - Executive Order No. 10925 ^[13], issued by President Kennedy

Established the concept of affirmative action by mandating that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias.

• 1964 - Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

• 1965 - U.S. Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375

The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.

The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities.

The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.

• 1969 - Revised Philadelphia Plan

During the Nixon administration, affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects. This revised Philadelphia Plan was spearheaded by Labor Department official Arthur Fletcher.^[14]

• 1971 - Executive Order No. 11625 ^[15], issued by President Nixon

This order claims to build upon the Office of Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) established in 1969 by clarifying the Secretary of Commerce's authority to "(a) implement Federal policy in support of the minority business enterprise program; (b) provide additional technical and management assistance to disadvantaged businesses; (c) to assist in demonstration projects; and (d) to coordinate the participation of all Federal departments and agencies in an increased minority enterprise effort."

• 1971 - Griggs v. Duke Power Company 401 U.S. 424 (1971)

• 1973 - Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented.

• 1974 - DeFunis v. Odegaard 416 U.S. 312 (1974)

• 1978 - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

The Supreme Court held that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, Justice Lewis Powell's decision in the majority upheld diversity in higher education as a "compelling interest" and held that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.

• 1979 - U.S. Executive Order 12138 ^[16]

Issued by President Carter, this executive order created a National Women's Business Enterprise Policy and required government agencies to take affirmative action in support of women's business enterprises.

• 1989 - City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) (strict scrutiny standard to state and local programs).

• 1989 - Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) revised the standards established by the 1971 Griggs decision.

• 1990 - Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

People with disabilities as a group were more fully recognized as being protected by this act.

• 1995 - Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)

established strict scrutiny standard of review for race and ethnic-based Federal Affirmative Action programs.

• 1996 - Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996)

(first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke).

• 1998 - President Clinton's Affirmative Action Review

• 2003 - Grutter v. Bollinger (02-241) 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

• 2006 - Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 [4]

California

• 1946 - Mendez v. Westminster School District

• Penn/Stump v City of Oakland, 1967

This Consent Decree stated that men and women should be hired by race and gender as police officers in the same percentage that they’re represented in the population of the city. This process took more than twenty years to complete. There were approximately 34 black police officers on the Oakland Police department. There were no black females among them. At this time, the militant Black Panther Party had formed in part due to police brutality at the hands of Oakland's overwhelmingly white police force and the City of Oakland at the time was approaching an African American majority as well prompting the push for minority police officer recruitment.^[17]

• Proposition 209, 1996

This proposition mandates that "the state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."[5] Prop 209 was controversial because it was promoted as civil rights legislation, although it was essentially a ban on affirmative action.^[18] Proponents argue that the measure ensures that the civil rights of Caucasians, South Indians, and South East-Asians are protected by ensuring parity between races.

Washington

• Initiative 200, 1998

in Washington was overwhelmingly passed by the electorate. Taking effect on December 3, 1998, it applies to all local governments, including counties, cities, and towns. I-200 prohibits "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting.

• Smith v. University of Washington 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) :^[19]

• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 72 P.3d 151 (2003), 2003

The Washington State Supreme Court interpreted I-200 to forbid affirmative actions that promote a "less qualified" applicant over a "better qualified" one, but not programs that sought to achieve diversity without consideration of individual merit.

In the beginning, racial classifications that identified race were inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. These classifications would only be upheld if necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Later the U.S. Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and promoted a compelling governmental purpose. (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.) There is no clear guidance about when government action is not "compelling", and such rulings are rare.

Michigan

• Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that race could be used as one of several factors in professional school admissions without necessarily violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly-tailored policy which considered race and other factors, with no quota or predetermined weight associated with the factors, was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

• Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions system, which granted extra "points" to minorities based on race, and which determined admissions status based on cumulative points, was unconstitutional because it is too mechanical and does not appear to consider the individual's actual contribution to the educational environment.

An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."

• Proposal 2, 2006

After Grutter and Gratz, in November 2006, voters in the State of Michigan made affirmative action illegal by passing Proposal 2 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), a state-wide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. Proposal 2 bans public affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, public education or public contracting purposes. The amendment, however, contains an exception for actions that are mandated by federal law or that are necessary in order for an institution to receive federal funding. All attempts to appeal this legislation on supposed grounds of unconstitutionality have thus far failed.

Nebraska

• Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008)

In November of 2008, Nebraska voters passed an anti-affirmative action measure titled Initiative 424 to amend the state Constitution to ban race and gender preferences in public hiring, contracting, and college admissions ^[20].

Connecticut

Ricci v. DeStefano was heard by the United States Supreme Court in 2009. The case concerns white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who upon passing their test for promotions to management were denied the promotions, allegedly because of a discriminatory or at least questionable test. The test gave 17 whites and two Hispanics the possibility of immediate promotion. Although 23% of those taking the test were African American, none scored high enough to qualify. Because of the possibility the tests were biased in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,^[21][22] no candidates were promoted pending outcome of the controversy.^[23][24] In a split 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that New Haven had engaged in impermissible racial discrimination against the White and Hispanic majority.

Positions against affirmative action

Many conservatives, whose demographics comprise a bigger majority of White Americans than those identifying as political progressives, categorically oppose affirmative action. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the only current black Justice, opposes affirmative action because he believes it is detrimental to Black Americans.^[25]

Onkar Ghate believes that, by judging applicants by race instead of merit, affirmative action is not in the tradition of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.^{[26][relevant? – discuss]}

Controversy

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases, where it is often contested on constitutional grounds. Some individual American states also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, and disability status. Some other states specifically prohibit affirmative action, with laws intended to decrease discrimination, such as California (Proposition 209), Washington (Initiative 200), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Nebraska (Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (2008)).

Some opponents of affirmative action contend that affirmative action programs are discriminatory and that they, in many cases, result in the promotion of under-qualified individuals over higher qualified individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, or gender.^{[citation needed]} They also argue that preferential treatment should be based upon current social and economical standing, not that of one's ancestors. Some opponents say affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen because of the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications.^[27]

Opponents of affirmative action include Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, who has promoted and won a series of ballot initiatives in the states of California (California Proposition 209 (1996)), Washington (1998 - I-200), and Michigan (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative - MCRI, or Proposal 2, 2006).^{[citation needed]} California's initiative was co-authored by academics Tom Wood and Glynn Custred in the mid-1990s and was taken up by Connerly after he was appointed in 1994 by Governor Pete Wilson to the University of California Board of Regents.^{[citation needed]} Each of the ballot initiatives have won, and Connerly plans what he calls a "Super-Tuesday" of five additional states in 2008.^{[citation needed]}

Professor Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, who was a supporter of Michigan's Proposal 2, has argued that the term "affirmative action" should be defined differently than "race preference," and that while socioeconomically based or anti-discrimination types of affirmative action are permissible, those that give preference to individuals solely based on their race or gender should not be permitted.^{[citation needed]} Cohen also helped find evidence in 1996 through the Freedom of Information Act that lead to the cases filed by Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter against the University of Michigan for its undergraduate and law admissions policy - cases which were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2003.^{[citation needed]}

Conservative economist Thomas Sowell identified what he says are negative results of affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study ^[28]. Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiaries of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor white or Asian); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they engender animosity toward preferred groups as well.

Class inequality

The controversy surrounding affirmative action’s effectiveness is based on the idea of class inequality. Opponents of racial affirmative action argue that the program actually benefits middle- and upper-class people of color at the expense of lower class European Americans and Asian Americans. This argument supports the idea of solely class-based affirmative action. America’s poor is disproportionately made up of people of color, so class-based affirmative action would disproportionately help people of color. This would eliminate the need for race-based affirmative action as well as reducing any disproportionate benefits for middle and upper class people of color.^[29]

In 1976, a group of Italian-American professors at City University of New York asked to be added as an affirmative action category for promotion and hiring.^[31]

A 2005 study by Princeton sociologists Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung compared the effects of affirmative action on racial and special groups at three highly selective private research universities. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of SAT points (on the old 1600-point scale):

• Blacks: +230
• Hispanics: +185
• Asians: –50
• Recruited athletes: +200
• Legacies (children of alumni): +160

^[32]

Discrimination?

Some opponents of affirmative action, like Ward Connerly, call it discrimination saying affirmative action requires the very discrimination it is seeking to eliminate. According to these opponents, this contradiction makes affirmative action counter-productive. Other opponents say affirmative action causes unprepared applicants to be accepted in highly demanding educational institutions or jobs which result in eventual failure. (See, for example, Richard Sander's study of affirmative action in Law School, bar exam and eventual performance at law firms). Other opponents say that affirmative action lowers the bar, and so denies those who strive for excellence on their own merit and the sense of real achievement. (See, for example, Clarence Thomas' "My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir".) Some argue that affirmative action itself has some merit when it is targeted to true causes of social deprivation such as poverty, but that race-, ethnicity- or gender-based affirmative action is misguided.^[33]

Proponents of affirmative action argue that by nature the system is not only race based, but also class and gender based. To eliminate two of its key components would undermine the purpose of the entire system. The African American Policy Forum believes that the class based argument is based on the idea that non-poor minorities do not experience racial and gender based discrimination. The AAPF believes that "Race-conscious affirmative action remains necessary to address race-based obstacles that block the path to success of countless people of color of all classes". The groups goes on to say that affirmative action is responsible for creating the African American middle class, so it does not make sense to say that the system only benefits the middle and upper classes.^[34]

Some opponents^[35] further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages groups to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).^[36] In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favored minority areas. There has recently been a strong push among American states to ban racial or gender preferences in university admissions, in reaction to the controversial and unprecedented decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2006, nearly 60% of Michigan voters decided to ban affirmative action in university admissions. Michigan joined California, Florida, Texas, and Washington in banning the use of race or sex in admissions considerations.^[37] Some research has indicated that as many as 15 percent of freshmen enrolled at some of America's most selective colleges are wealthy white teens who failed to meet their institutions' minimum admissions standards, furthermore these wealthy white teens outnumber students who benefit from affirmative action.^[38] Some opponents believe, among other things, that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who belong to a group it's supposed to help, therefore making affirmative action counter-productive. On the other hand, a recent study by Deirdre Bowen tested many of the arguments used by the anti-affirmative action camp. Her research showed that minority students experience greater hostility, and internal and external stigma in schools located in states that ban affirmative action—not the schools where students may have benefited from affirmative action admissions.<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324076>

How the media portrays affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims^[who?] that the practice is racist or sexist, or both, depending on how one defines those concepts (for instance, the offering of extra college scholarships to black students and Hispanic students - regardless of race, thus including White Hispanics - as opposed to European American or Asian American students appears overtly racist). Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations.

Some states^[who?] aim to implement ballot measures Fall of 2008 that would eliminate affirmative action. Many of these anti-affirmative action campaigns are spearheaded by the founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, Ward Connerly.^[39]

Implementation in universities

In the U.S., a prominent form of affirmative action centers on access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of higher education. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question (legacy admissions), and/or gender are sometimes taken into account when assessing the meaning of an applicant's grades and test scores. Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke v. Regents that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment.^[40] The Court said that "goals" and "timetables" for diversity could be set instead.^[40]

The affirmative action debate surrounding admission to U.S. college and universities reflects competing notions of what colleges are for: "To what extent should they pursue scholarly excellence, to what extent civic goods, and how should these purposes be balanced?"^[41]. Scholars such as Ronald Dworkin have asserted that no college applicant has a right to expect that a university will design its admissions policies in a way the prizes any particular set of qualities^[42]. In this view, admission is not an honor bestowed to reward superior merit but rather a way to advance the mission as each university defines it. If diversity is a goal of the university and their racial preferences do not discriminate against applicants based on hatred or contempt, then affirmative action can be judged acceptable based on the criteria related to the mission the university sets for itself.

Consistent with this view, admissions officers often claim to select students not based on academic record alone, but also on commitment, enthusiasm, motivation, and potential ^[43]. Highly selective institutions of higher learning do not simply select only the highest SAT performers to populate their undergraduate courses. Nevertheless, high performers, with 1500 to 1600 points, are extraordinarily well-represented at these institutions.^[44]

UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of affirmative action in law schools. The article presents a study that, among other things, shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school, and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended, as less qualified black students would instead attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched with their classmates, and thus perform better. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996 which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities California schools. This change occurred after studies that showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.

In order to accommodate the ruling in Hopwood v. Texas banning any use of race in school admissions, the State of Texas passed a law guaranteeing entry to any state university of a student's choice if they finished in the top 10% of their graduating class. Florida and California have also replaced racial quotas with class rank and other programs. Class rank tends to benefit top students at less competitive high schools, to the detriment of students at more competitive high schools. This effect, however, may be intentional, as less-funded, less competitive schools are more likely to be schools where minority enrollment is high. Critics argue that class rank is more a measure of one's peers than of one's self. The top-10% rule is also only helpful because schools are still highly racially segregated.^[45] And taking the top 10% of each class still does the same thing that traditional affirmative action programs do - admit students to college that would not be admitted under entirely merit-based policies.^[45] From 1996 to 1998, Texas had entirely merit-based admission to its state universities, and minority enrollment was low; adopting the "top 10 percent" rule returned minority enrollment to pre-1996 levels.^[45]

In 2006, Jian Li, a Chinese undergraduate at Yale University, filed a civil rights complaint with the Office for Civil Rights against Princeton University, claiming that his race played a role in their decision to reject his application for admission, and seeking the suspension of federal financial assistance to the university until it "discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms" by eliminating race and legacy preferences. Princeton Dean of Admissions Janet Rapelye responded to the claims in the 30 November 2006 issue of the Daily Princetonian by stating that "the numbers don't indicate [discrimination]" and that Li was not admitted because "Many others had far better qualifications." Li's extracurriculars were described as "not all that outstanding" ^[46].

See also

• Affirmative action
• Affirmative action bake sale – A critical bake sale organized on college campuses demonstrating "affirmative action pricing structures".
• Race and inequality in the United States
• Redistributive change
• White privilege
• Whites Only Scholarship

Organizations

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
• Institute for Justice
• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

References

1. ^ "[Executive Order 11246--Equal employment opportunity"]. The Federal Register. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html. Retrieved 5/5/2010.
2. ^ ^{a b} "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)". U.S. Department of Labor. http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm. Retrieved 5/5/2010.
3. ^ Herring, Cedric (1995), African Americans and Disadvantage in the U.S. Labor Market, University of Michigan, pp. 1, http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu/prba/perspectives/spring1995/cherring.pdf
4. ^ Chubb, C; Melis, S; Potter, L; Storry, R (2008). "The Global Gender Pay Gap" (pdf). International Trade Union Confederation. http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/gap-1.pdf. Retrieved 5/0/2010.
5. ^ Butto, James; Moore, Kelli N; RIENZO, BARBARA A (2006). "Supporting Diversity Works: African American Male and Female Employment in Six Florida Cities" (pdf). Western Journal of Black Studies. http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/gap-1.pdf. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
6. ^ Obama, Barrack (April 20 2010). "Presidential Proclamation -- National Equal Pay Day". Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-national-equal-pay-day. Retrieved May 5 2010.
7. ^ "Median Weekly Earnings, by sex and race". U.S. Department of Labor. 2008. http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-ESWM08.htm. Retrieved May 5 2010.
8. ^ Anderson, Elizabeth S.; Rawls, John; Thurnau, Arthur F. (July 2008). "Race, Gender, and Affirmative Action". University of Michigan. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/biblio.htm. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
9. ^ "Affirmative Action". June 15 2009. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/index.html. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
10. ^ "Executive Order 10925 - Establishing The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity". The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58863. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Commencement Address at Howard University". Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum. 1965. http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp.
12. ^ "Executive Order 11375 - Amending Executive Order No. 11246, Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity". The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60553. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
13. ^ Executive Order 10925
14. ^ Richard Nixon and the origins of affirmative action. | Article from The Historian | HighBeam Research
15. ^ Executive Order 11625
16. ^ Executive Order 12138
17. ^ HOME
18. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/12/02/asparks.DTL&type=opinion
19. ^ FindLaw | Cases and Codes
20. ^ "Neb. voters approve ban on affirmative action". USA Today. November 5, 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-11-05-491640836_x.htm. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
21. ^ Liptak, Adam. "Justices to Hear White Firefighters’ Bias Claims", The New York Times (April 9, 2009).
22. ^ Richey, Warren. "Supreme Court to Hear Reverse-Discrimination Case", Christian Science Monitor (April 21, 2009)
23. ^ Supreme Court to hear reverse-discrimination case, Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 2009
24. ^ Justices to Hear White Firefighters’ Bias Claims, The New York Times, April 9, 2009
25. ^ [1]
26. ^ [2]
27. ^ Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays In Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p.40.
28. ^ (ISBN 0-300-10199-6, 2004
29. ^ Hurst, C. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequences. Sixth Edition. 2007. 374-377.
30. ^ "Acceptance Rates". http://www.asianam.org/college_admission_officers.htm.
31. ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 273. ISBN 0465041957.
32. ^ Study (PDF)
33. ^ Black America | Nearer to overcoming | Economist.com
34. ^ "13 Myths About Affirmative Action: A Special Series on a Public Policy Under Siege". African American Policy Forum. http://aapf.org/projects/affirmativeaction/. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
35. ^ American Civil Rights Institute
36. ^ Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination / Patrick Garry (2006) ISBN 1581825692
37. ^ "Affirmative action ban draws a challenge". The National Law Journal. http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1163671521213. Retrieved 2008-03-03.
38. ^ At the elite colleges - dim white kids By Peter Schmidt. September 28, 2007. The Boston Globe.
39. ^ "Attacking Affirmative Action". NOW on PBS. August 29, 2008. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/434/index.html.
40. ^ ^{a b} Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. pp. 242–244. ISBN 0465041957.
41. ^ Sandel, Michael (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
42. ^ Dworkin, Ronald (November 1977). ""Why Bakke Has No Case"". New York Review of Books 24.
43. ^ Undergraduate courses - University of Oxford
44. ^ http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf
45. ^ ^{a b c} http://www.slate.com/id/64368/
46. ^ [3]

Categories: History of affirmative action in the United States | Discrimination in the United States | Politics and race | Social inequality | Affirmative action

See Also:

• Intelligence Communities
• U.S. State: Encyclopedia
• United States: Encyclopedia
• Pacific States: Encyclopedia
• United States Army: Encyclopedia

What Links Here:

Recently Viewed Pages:

• Espionage: Encyclopedia
• Demographic History of the United States: Blogs
• Espionage
• Videos
• United States Federal Executive Departments: Encyclopedia
• United States Intelligence Community: Answers
• Intelligence (Information Gathering): Encyclopedia
• Regional: North America: United States: Government: Military: Intelligence: Directory
• United States Intelligence Community: News
• United States Intelligence Community: Blogs

Most Popular Pages:

• Interstate Highway System: Images
• Espionage: Encyclopedia
• Espionage
• Spy Satellite: Blogs
• Incarceration In the United States: Images
• Folklore of the United States: Images
• Congressional Oversight: Answers
• Country Music
• United States Federal Courts: Answers
• Territorial Changes of the United States: Toc

Related 'Affirmative Action In the United States' Searches: