FREE ESSAY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative Action as defined by the Meriam Webster's Dictionary is an active effort to
improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups or
women. 
In 1961 John F.Kennedy issued an executive order calling for Affirmative Action as a
means to promote equal opportunity for racial minorities, in hiring by federal
contractors. This was the first official use of the term by the Federal Government. Eight
years later Nixon as President beefed up the Office of Federal Compliance Programs, which
along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has become one of the governments
two main enforcers of affirmative action policy.(Grolier's Electronic Encyclopedia, 1993)

Such efforts have vastly expanded opportunities for Afro-Americans. However they have
also touched off complaints from many whites that Afro-Americans are benefiting from
reverse discrimination. Under the equal opportunity act of 1972 most federal contractors,
subcontractors, all state and government institutions (including universities) must
initiate plans to increase the proportions of their female and minority employees until
they are equal to the proportions existing in the available labor market.(Grolier's
Electric Encyclopedia, 1993) 
Affirmative action plans that establish racial quotas were declared unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court in the case of University of California VS. Bakke in 1978. This case
arose when the medical school of the University of California at Davis twice rejected
Allen Bakke's application while admitting members of racial minorities who had lower test
scores. Bakke charged that the medical school's policy of setting aside 16 of the 100
positions for racial minorities was a violation of the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment. In a complex 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ordered that Bakke be
admitted. The court ruled that even though universities may consider race and ethnic
origins as a factor in evaluating candidates for admission, they may not establish fixed
racial quotas.(Time Magazine, May 27 1991, pp.22) 
The decision was, however upheld in the case of Private Business and Unions in United
Steelworkers of America vs. Webber in 1979. This case arose when Brian F. Webber sued
Kaiser Aluminum and the United Steelworkers of America for setting aside half of the
positions in a training program for minority workers with less seniority. The Supreme
Court overruled this case by a 5-2 vote holding that the Kaiser program did not violate
title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. The ruling was that, private employers could
voluntarily adopt plans designed to eliminate conspicuous racial imbalance in
traditionally segregated job categories. Then in 1984 and 1986 the justices ruled against
upsetting seniority systems in favor of minorities.(Harper's Magazine, July 1991, pp.27)

In 1984 the Supreme Court struck down a Richmond ordinance intended to quarntee
Afro-Americans and other minorities a greater share of the city's construction contracts.
The decision not only threatened similar programs in 36 states, but also opened the door
to legal attacks against other racially based government schemes. A key component of the
court ruling was the requirement that all government distinctions based on race be
subject to strict scrutiny. This means that public sector affirmative action programs are
valid only if they serve the compelling state interest of redressing identified
discrimination.(Time Magazine, February 6 1989, pp.60) 
Affirmative action has moved to the forefront of public debate in recent months with a
proposed California ballot initiative that would end many race-based preference programs.
The University of California itself has become the focus of debate after Ward Connerly, a
Regent for the University of California system called for an end to such preferences in
admissions. The Chancellor of UCLA Charles E. Young, quickly took a strong stand against
Mr. Connerly, saying that affirmative action had benefited the university and should
continue.(NY.Times, June 4 1995, pp.22) 
The University Of California at Berkeley campus was among the first of the nations'
leading universities to embrace the elements of affirmative action in it's admissions
policies, and now boasts that it has one of the most diverse campuses in America, with
whites accounting for only 32% of the student body. However Berkeley may soon become one
of the first campuses in the nation to abandon the cornerstone of affirmative action in
higher education. The University Board of Regents expects to consider a proposal to
prohibit the use of race and ethnicity as factors for admissions.(NY. Times, June 4 1995,
pp.23) 
Then on Thursday July 8, 1995, the California University System Board of Regents adopted
a plan to dismantle affirmative action plans within the university system. 
Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California system shall not use race, color,
religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for admission to the
University or any program of study. The following is a brief excerpt from the resolution:
The president shall confer with the Academic Senate of the University of California to
develop supplemental criteria for consideration by the board of regents. . . In
developing such criteria, which shall provide reasonable assurances that the applicant
will successfully complete his or her course of study, consideration shall be given to
individuals who, despite having suffered disadvantage economically or in terms of their
environment (such as an abusive or otherwise dysfunctional home or a neighborhood of
unwholesome or anti-social influences),have nonetheless demonstrated sufficient character
and determination in overcoming obstacles to warrant confidence that the applicant can
pursue a course of study to successful completion, provided that any student admitted
under this section must be academically eligible for admission. (NY Times, June 4 1995
pp.7) 
The regents decision was hailed as an Historical achievement by Republican Governor Pete
Wilson. Wilson responded to White House Chief of Staff's Leon Panetta's contentions that
the board of regents made a terrible mistake and that the Justice Department would begin
a review of the billions of dollars that flow from the federal government into the
states' universities, by claiming that the state will not be intimidated by the implicit
threat of losing the huge largess in student aid and research funds that the university
receives. The university would follow through with the dismantling of the programs
because, they were wrong and unfair.(NY Times, July 22 1995, pp.7) 
There are however two unusual twists to the assault on affirmative action in the
University of California system, that defy the stereotypes. First the race based
preferences are being attacked by a black member of the board of regents and defended by
Berkeley's Asian-American Chancellor. Second the racial makeup here has extended the
fault line in the debate to minority VS. minority, as well as black VS