Affirmative Action in America

Olivia Carter
Research Essay
Dr. Wendell Howlett
February 15, 2016

Often, following gained perspective or understanding, an urgency to correct or fix prior

mistakes becomes prevalent. In the case of the Civil Rights Movement, this urgency lead to the
inception of Affirmative Action, a hopeful quick fix to a national history filled with the
purposeful oppression of certain sects of the nationparticularly African Americans.
Unfortunately, the hard lined implementation of Affirmative Action as a systematic reset of
centuries-long oppression lead to long-standing debate regarding its validity.
Prior to the implementation of Affirmative Action, minoritys ability to grow and prosper
was severely stunted by segregation, and racism, whether implicit or explicit. Black
communities in particular, though growing in size, were hobbled by the bonds of a society
seemingly dedicated to their failure. Routinely, those seeking to better themselves and their
situation through education, vocational and technical training, or promotion found themselves
unable to thrive simply because of their race.
As the Civil Rights Movement grew, for the first time, there was a focus on lessening the
financial, educational, and social gap between the races. On March 6, 1961 President John. F
Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which urged federal contractors to take affirmative
action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment
without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin and established the Presidents
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, now known as the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission or EEOC (Executive Order 10925). Four years later, after the
enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order
11246. This order was a follow up to President Kennedys earlier order, and took the
commitment to equal opportunity a step further-- outwardly prohibiting discrimination based on
the previous conditions by organizations receiving federal contracts or subcontracts. Executive

Order 11246 reaffirmed that race could not affect employment, upgrading, demotion, or
transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms
of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship (Executive Order 11246),
and outlined new policies aimed at disseminating and enforcing a nondiscrimination policy
and implementing action oriented programs for accomplishing these goals (UCI) in the new,
desegregated social climate.
Simultaneous to the enforcement of Affirmative Action policies in governmental
contracting, colleges and universities were beginning to feel pressure to use similar policies.
Institutions of higher learning were suddenly changing long-standing admissions requirements and
policies to provide equal access to education for those groups that have been historically excluded
or underrepresented (National Conference of State Legislatures). The two main categories of
citizens eliciting the most interest were, of course, African Americans and women. Suddenly, in a
time colleges and universities constituents were white, upper- upper middle class men, the dynamic
changed. Institutions began marketing themselves to underrepresented students, offering
financial aid and on-campus support groups (National Conference of State Legislatures). These
offerings allowed students to prepare themselves for higher achievement in the corporate field,
which was also employing new policies. These programs, specifically, helped many major
companies in the Fortune 1,000 break the glass ceiling for minorities. Affirmative Action policy
in corporate settings and education allowed many to gain skills in industries that provided steady,
well paid jobsmarkedly different from the financially unstable situation many African Americans
were in before its implementation (Department of Labor).

However, decision to lower or scale admissions requirements in jobs, government contracts,

and schools lead to immense backlash. Many opponents of Affirmative Action argued that the
policies encouraged reverse racism, and abolished the need for merit and hard work. In particular,
Richmond City was forced to face a large lawsuit brought by J.A. Croson Company. J.A. Croson
Company cited the citys policy of giving minority businesses preference in awarding municipal
contracts as being in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The case eventually made its way to
The Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled in the Croson Companys favor, stating :
"We, therefore, hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling
interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To
accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the
basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims
for "remedial relief" for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of
equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and
achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently
unmeasurable claims of past wrongsWe think such a result would be contrary
to both the letter and the spirit of a constitutional provision whose central
command is equality."
The ruling of the Supreme Court echoed the sentiment of a large portion of the nation-questioning whether the policies were over-compensating and doing more harm that good. But,
while the structure and incorporation of the policies were marginally flawed, as a whole, the
implementation of Affirmative Action was necessary to begin to right past wrongs. Looking past
the sudden or rushed beginnings, or calls of reverse racism, it is crucial to understand that a
history of oppression and discrimination cannot be corrected in a clean or perfect way.

Affirmative Action successfully performed its duty, allowing minorities entry into positions and
situations they were previously, whether explicitly or implicitly, barred from.

Works Cited

Executive Order 10925

Executive Order 11246
NCSL. Background of Affirmative Action. NCSL, 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 11 February 2016.
Text of City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
UCI. A Brief History of Affirmative Action. OEOD, 22 Jun. 2013. Web. 11 February 2016.