Affirmative Action in the United States

  • FDR signs executive order 8802

    FDR signs executive order 8802
    In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the first federal order prohibiting racial discrimination in the defense industries or government. The order also led to the creating of a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC). Although this policy was established largely to pacify civil rights activists and did not ensure complete equality in the workplace, this action was a step forward toward future civil rights advances after World War II (Encyclopedia Brittanica, n.d.).
  • Period: to

    Shifting attitudes through the 20th and 21st centuries

    Currently, colleges are still permitted to consider race as one of many factors for admission. Opponents of the policy believe that progress has rendered it no longer necessary, in light of record setting minority college enrollment. Supporters believe the policy is still necessary to achieve a level of diversity that is not produced by considering academic profiles alone. As the national population becomes increasingly more diverse in future years, this policy will continue to be up for debate.
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Civil Rights Act of 1964
    This landmark law, signed by President Johnson, outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or origin. Title IV and VI of this act directly impacted academia. Under these titles, schools were desegregated, and agencies that received federal funding were prohibited from discriminating against applicants. Since this financial support was critical to most colleges and universities, they were greatly motivated to comply (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).
  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
    As a result of this case, the court "agreed that special admissions program reserving spaces for minority students violated Title VII and 14th amendment' (Holzer & Neumark, 2000, pp. 489).This ruling greatly limited the ability of colleges and universities to employ affirmative action in admissions practices. Colleges had to balance their desire to support minority students without penalizing white students based on their race.
  • Minority enrollment increases

    Minority enrollment increases
    Despite ongoing controversy surrounding affirmative action in the 1990s, researchers published findings confirming the positive influence of affirmative action. Reports tracking minority enrollment numbers from the 1960s to 1990s demonstrate a drastic increase in the number of minority students who enrolled and graduated from institutions of higher learning. The percentage of African-Americans with a college degree alone jumped from 5.4% in 1960 to 15.4% in 1995 (Holzer & Neumark, p. 509).
  • Texas' Top 10% Rule

    Texas' Top 10% Rule
    In response to a temporary ban on affirmative action policies, Texas House Bill 588 passed in 1997, guaranteeing that any student graduating in the top 10% of their high school class would be offered automatic admission into all state universities/ As a result, this greatly increased the percentage of minority students enrolled in Texas public colleges. Schools with competitive admission, such as the University of Texas at Austin, saw large increases in minority enrollment (Pinhel, R., 2008).
  • Diversity initiatives increase

    Diversity initiatives increase
    As the 21st century approached, universities began to place increasing emphasis on diversity as an educational benefit to all students. According to a statement from the American Association of University Presidents, the learning that takes place in a diverse environment is even more crucial for students entering the twenty-first century than it was in the past. Thus, many universities began to seek diversity both in admissions and on-campus student programs (Holzer & Neumark, 2000, p. 528).
  • Grutter v. Bollinger

    Grutter v. Bollinger
    In Grutter v. Bollinger, student Barbara Grutter sued the University of Michigan Law school stating that her race was the sole difference between automatic acceptance and rejection from the university. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan, stating that the law school had a right to consider diversity if it benefits educational interests. However, racial preferences were only to be used in admissions for the next twenty-five years (Center for Individual Rights, n.d.).
  • Barack Obama elected as first African-American president

    Barack Obama elected as first African-American president
    Following the election of Barack Obama in 2008, many Americans felt hopeful that the country was entering a new "post-racial era" where affirmative action would no longer be necessary to achieve diversity (Brooks-Immel, D. & Murray, S., 2017, pp. 316). Despite this leap of progress represented by President Obama's election, Brooks-Immel and Murray find that white higher education administrators continued to struggle with issues of racism and implementing diversity on their campuses (2017).
  • Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin

    Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin
    In 2013, Abigail Fischer sued the University of Texas at Austin, claiming that she and other white students who were not granted automatic admission for being in the top 10% were at a disadvantage compared with similarly qualified minority students. The court supported Texas' claim that race was a necessary consideration in order to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, both in the original decision in 2013 and the appeal in 2016 (Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin, 2016).
  • Harvard accused of discrimination against Asian-Americans

    Harvard accused of discrimination against Asian-Americans
    A group of students recently sued Harvard College, claiming discrimination against Asian-Americans. This case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, is scheduled for trial in fall 2018. The Justice Department initially sided with the students, stating that Harvard appears to consistently engage in racial quotas that negatively impact Asian-Americans. The results of the case could greatly impact the legality of race-conscious admission policies (United States Department of Justice, 2018).