Affirmative Action (1961-2003)
Sections:
  1. John F. Kennedy: Executive Order 10925 (1961)
  2. Civil Rights Act (1964)
  3. Lyndon B. Johnson: Executive Order 11246 (1965)
  4. Richard M. Nixon: Executive Order 11625 (1971)
  5. US Supreme Court Case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
  6. Jimmy Carter: Executive Order 12138 (1979)
  7. US Supreme Court Case: United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)
  8. President Ronald Regan: Executive Order 12432 (1983)
  9. US Supreme Court Case: Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
  10. US Supreme Court Case - Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
  11. US Supreme Court Case: Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
  12. US Supreme Court Case: Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
  13. President William Clinton: Mend it, Don’t End it Speech (July 1995)
  14. Senator Robert Dole and Representative Charles Canady: Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 (1995)
  15. US Supreme Court Case: Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
  16. US Supreme Court Case: Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
  17. Affirmative Action PowerPoint
  18. Historiography
John F. Kennedy: Executive Order 10925 (1961)Top
President John F. Kennedy's Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 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." Created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

Questions to consider:
1) What reasons does the document give for its passage?
2) Why is it significant that the government instituted such a policy within itself?
     Executive Order 10925.rtf  
     JFK.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/10925.htm
Photo of John F. Kennedy: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V120/N28/91KennedyArtsDON.jpg
Civil Rights Act (1964)Top
This was landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers (over 15 employees), whether or not they have government contracts. The Act, provided below, established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Questions to consider:
1) What rights does this act bestow or guarantee?
2)What does this act ensure in terms of employment?
3) What prominent figures do you see in the photo below?
     Civil Rights Act.rtf  
     Johnson Signs the Civil Rights Act 1964.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
Photo of President Johnson Signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/av.hom/images/276-10-64.JPG
Lyndon B. Johnson: Executive Order 11246 (1965)Top
President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring 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 to administer the order. This order was amended in 1967 requiring to make good-faith efforts to expand employment opportunities for women and minorities.

Question to consider:
1) How does this executive order differ from previous legislation?
     Executive Order 11246.rtf  
     LBJ.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm
Photo of LBJ: http://www.ee.princeton.edu/~jay/lbj.jpg
Richard M. Nixon: Executive Order 11625 (1971)Top
President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.

Question to consider:
1) What are the duties of the Secretary of Commerce in the E.O.?
     Executive Order 11625.rtf  
     Richard M Nixon.gif
Citations:
Full version: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11625.html
Photo of Richard M. Nixon: http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/modern/jb_modern_nixchina_1_e.jpg
US Supreme Court Case: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)Top
The U.S. Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission into teh University of California. At the same time, it also ruled unlawful the University Medical School's practice of reserving 18 seats in each entering class of 100 for disadvantaged minority students.

Questions to consider:
1) Do you think the Supreme Court ruling was fair? Why or why not?
2)Bakke argued that he was far more qualified than even the most qualified minority applicant. Do you think his experiences as a white male in the U.S. make it easier for Bakke to become so qualified?
     Regents of the University of California v Bakke.rtf  
     Alan Bakke.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/324/opinion/transcript
Photo of Alan Bakke: http://www.cnn.com/US/9908/10/affirmative.action/link.bakke.jpg
Jimmy Carter: Executive Order 12138 (1979)Top
President Jimmy Carter issued E.O. 12138, creating a National Women's Business Enterprise Policy and requiring each agency to take affirmative action to support women's business enterprises.

Question to consider:
1) This E.O. does not deal with race. Why is it significant to the history of Affirmative Action?
     Executive Order 12138.rtf  
     Carter.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12138.html
Photo of Jimmy Carter: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/prespoetry/images/carter_1.jpg
US Supreme Court Case: United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)Top
The Supreme Court ruled in United Steel Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber, 444 U.S. 889 (1979) 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.

Questions to consider:
1) Why was this case brought to court?
2) What kind of discrimination was being argued in this case?
3) What did the court decide?
     United Steelworkers of America v Weber.rtf  
Citations:
Full version: http://www.justia.us/us/443/193/case.html
President Ronald Regan: Executive Order 12432 (1983)Top
President Ronald Reagan issued E.O. 12432, which directed each federal agency with substantial procurement or grant making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) development plan.

Question to consider:
1) What does this E.O. seek to promote?
     Executive Order 12432.rtf  
     Reagan.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12432.html
Photo of Ronald Reagan: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c30228.jpg
US Supreme Court Case: Local 28 v. EEOC 478 U.S. 421 (1986)Top
The Supreme Court in Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986) 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.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Local 28 v EEOC 478 US 421 .rtf  
Citations:
Full version: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/421/case.html
US Supreme Court Case - Johnson v. Transportation Agency 480 U.S. 616 (1987)Top
The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, 480 U.S. 616 (1987) that a severe under representation of women and minorities justified the use of race or sex as "one factor" in choosing among qualified candidates.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Johnson v Transportation Agency .rtf  
     Johnson v Transportation.gif
Citations:
Full version: http://www.justia.us/us/480/616/case.html
Johnson v. Transportation comic: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/santaclaravis.html
US Supreme Court Case: Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. 488 U.S. 469 (1989)Top
The Supreme Court in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) 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.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Richmond v JA Croson Co.rtf  
Citations:
Full version: http://www.justia.us/us/488/469/case.html
US Supreme Court Case: Adarand Constructors v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995)Top
In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 513 U.S. 1012 (1994) 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.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Adarand Constructors v Pena.rtf  
     Adarand Constructors v Pena.gif
Citations:
Full version: http://www.justia.us/us/515/200/case.html
Adarand Constructors v. Pena comic: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/adarand.gif
President William Clinton: Mend it, Don’t End it Speech (July 1995)Top
President Clinton delivered this major speech in defense of Affirmative Action programs at the National Archives in July 1995.

Questions to consider:
1) How does President Clinton view Affirmative Action as a whole?
2) How successful has Affirmative Action been in the past according to this speech?
3) What does he suggest for the future?
     Mend it Dont End it.rtf  
     Bill Clinton.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://web.utk.edu/~mfitzge1/docs/374/MDE1995.pdf
Photo of Bill Clinton: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/cph/3c00000/3c07000/3c07700/3c07700r.jpg
Senator Robert Dole and Representative Charles Canady: Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 (1995)Top
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.

Questions to consider:
1) How does this act differ from previous executive orders?
2) What would passage of this act mean for minorities?
     Equal Opportunity Act 1995.rtf  
     Bob Dole.jpg
     Charles Canady.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.1085:
Photo of Bob Dole: http://veterans.house.gov/benefits/gi60th/images/bobdole3.jpg
Photo of Charles Canady: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/post.vote.reax/canady.jpg
US Supreme Court Case: Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)Top
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. in 2003. In Grutter, the 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.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Grutter v Bollinger.rtf  
     Grutter v Bollinger.gif
     Barbara Grutter.JPG
Citations:
Full version: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/306/case.html
Grutter v. Bollinger comic: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/grutter.gif
Photo of Barbara Grutter: http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper255/stills/11t1tz99.jpg
US Supreme Court Case: Gratz v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 244 (2003)Top
The Supreme Court handed down its decisions in Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. in 2003. In Gratz, the Court 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.

Questions to consider:
1) What is the central issue in this case?
2) Why is this case important to Affirmative Action history?
3) How did the court decide?
     Gratz v Bollinger.rtf  
     Gratz v Bollinger.gif
     Jennifer Gratz.jpg
Citations:
Full version: http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/244/case.html
Gratz v. Bollinger comic: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/gratz.gif
Jennifer Gratz photo: http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper851/stills/41e3bbfd2ea37-44-1.jpg
Affirmative Action PowerPointTop
Below is a PowerPoint Presentation which can be used in the classroom, and covers all of the above material.
     Affirmative Action.ppt  
HistoriographyTop
By examining introductory sociology texts used in the United States in the article below, the authors embark on an investigation of the teaching of affirmative action in American schools. The article examines myths surrounding affirmative action policies in an effort to ascertain whether or not said myths affect the outcome of these policies. In targeting textbooks used in the classroom, the article is particularly salient for educators.

Beeman, Mark et al. 2000. "Educating Students About Affirmative Action: An Analysis of University Sociology Texts" Teaching Sociology. (28)2: 98-115.

The following article provides readers with a foundation for understanding the effects of affirmatice action on labor and business practices.

Holzer, Harry J. and Neumark, David. 2000. "What Does Affirmative Action Do?". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. (53)2: 240-271.

The article below examines the public opinion of affirmative action from a public education standpoint in an attempt to ascertain whether or not certain educational factors influence public opinions of affirmative action.

Iyigun, Murat F. and Levin, Andrew T. 2003. "What Determines Public Support for Affirmative Action?". Southern Economic Journal. (69)3: 612-627.
Back To Module List  Back to Sections