What is affirmative action?
It’s a policy first established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961. It requires government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
The policy gained further traction under President Lyndon B. Johnson, who expanded the principles and delivered a landmark speech at Howard University in 1965 explaining its necessity: “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”
While often conflated, affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are distinct concepts. Affirmative action specifically refers to policies that aim to increase representation of underrepresented groups through targeted recruitment, consideration of demographic factors in selection processes, and setting goals for representation. DEI, on the other hand, encompasses a broader range of initiatives focused on creating inclusive environments, addressing biases, and ensuring equitable treatment once people are in an organization, not just in recruitment or admissions.
These policies emerged from America’s Civil Rights Movement, championed by both Black civil rights leaders and white allies who recognized systemic barriers preventing equal opportunity. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, both white Democrats, played crucial roles in establishing affirmative action at the federal level, but the policy has received bipartisan support at various points in its history.
“When affirmative action is done right, it is flexible, it is fair, and it works. I know some people are honestly concerned about the times affirmative action doesn’t work, when it’s done in the wrong way. And I know there are times when some employers don’t use it in the right way. They may cut corners and treat a flexible goal as a quota,” said former President Bill Clinton. “They may give opportunities to people who are unqualified instead of those who deserve it. They may, in so doing, allow a different kind of discrimination. When this happens, it is also wrong. But it isn’t affirmative action, and it is not legal.”
Later, Republican Colin Powell, former Secretary of State, defended affirmative action as necessary for progress: “We all hope for the day when programs like this won’t be necessary, but in my experience, in my lifetime in this country, we have not yet progressed to that point. So I still think there is value in programs such as this, but they have to be measured against some basis of fairness and constitutionality.”
Criticism of affirmative action is not always rooted in racism, though some opponents have used race-neutral arguments to mask discriminatory intent. Many critics cite concerns about fairness, meritocracy, and the potential negative effects of group-based preferences.
The benefits of affirmative action are visible across American society. Greater diversity in higher education has enriched campus environments and prepared students for an increasingly global workplace. Corporations have found that diverse teams drive innovation and better serve diverse customer bases. A landmark study by the Century Foundation found that affirmative action policies helped create a Black middle class that might not have otherwise existed, contributing to economic growth and stability in communities nationwide.
In June 2023, affirmative action in college admissions faced its most significant setback when the Supreme Court ruled against race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Central to this case were claims that Asian American applicants faced discrimination — a narrative that complicated traditional discourse around affirmative action by highlighting tensions between different minority groups. The case, led by conservative activist Edward Blum, strategically positioned Asian Americans as plaintiffs in what many viewed as part of a broader effort to dismantle race-conscious policies.
Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a complex relationship with affirmative action. Despite benefiting from such policies in his admission to Holy Cross College and Yale Law School, he has become one of its most vocal opponents on the Court. Thomas has argued that affirmative action programs stigmatize their beneficiaries and questioned their effectiveness, writing that “these programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority.”
Despite the Court’s ruling, many educators and civil rights advocates argue that it remains premature to abandon affirmative action entirely. Persistent gaps in educational opportunity, wealth accumulation, and professional advancement suggest that a truly level playing field remains elusive.
The ongoing challenge for American institutions will be finding legally permissible ways to promote diversity and remedy historical inequities in a post-affirmative action landscape.
MORE URL MEDIA CONTENT ABOUT DIVERSITY AND REPRESENTATION
- Professional organizations sound the alarm on Trump-era hiring rollback
- What is DEI and why does it matter?
This content may have been created in part with AI assistance or collection.
