Psychology Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
in: All articles with dead external links, Articles with dead external links since March 2011, Pages using ISBN magic links,
and 13 more

Changes: Affirmative action

Back to page
Sign in to edit
No edit summary
(Fixed a dead link to point to web archive page)
Tag: rte-source
(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
{{SocPsy}}
−
'''Affirmative action''' (American English|U.S. English), or '''positive discrimination''' (British English), is a policy or a program of giving certain preferences to certain (usually under-represented) groups. particularly females and [[minority group]] members. This typically focuses on [[education]], [[employment]], government contracts, [[health care]], or [[social welfare]].
  
  +
{{Personnel}}
  +
'''Affirmative action''' (known as '''positive discrimination''' in the [[United Kingdom]], and as '''employment equity''' in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"<ref name="The Federal Register">{{cite web
  +
| publisher = The Federal Register
  +
| title = Executive Order 11246—Equal employment opportunity
  +
| url = http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
  +
| accessdate =5/2/2010| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20100330083544/http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html| archivedate= 30 March 2010 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref> into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group" in areas of employment, education, and business".<ref name="Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy">{{cite web
  +
| publisher = Stanford University
  +
| title = Affirmative Action
  +
| url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/
  +
| accessdate =4/6/2012}}</ref>
   
  +
==Origins==
−
There is much debate concerning claims that it fails to achieve its desired goal, and that it has unintended and undesirable side-effects. There are also claims that the practice is itself [[racism|racist]] or [[sexism|sexist]].
  
  +
The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in [[Executive Order 10925]] and was signed by President [[John F. Kennedy]] on 6 March 1961; it was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] enacted [[Executive Order 11246]] which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html |title=Affirmative Action: History and Rationale |publisher=Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President |date=19 July 1995}}</ref>
   
 
==Purpose==
  
==Purpose==
−
Affirmative action began as a corrective measure for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been subjected to prejudice. Such groups are characterized most commonly by [[race]], [[Gender role|gender]], or [[ethnicity]]. Affirmative action seeks to increase the representation of these demographic groups in fields of study and work in which they have traditionally been underrepresented.
  
   
  +
Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined groups within a society. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that [[minority group]]s within a society are included in all programs. The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or [[exploitation]] by the ruling class of a culture,<ref>Sowell, Thomas (2004). Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10199-6</ref> and to address existing discrimination.<ref name="Affirmative Action">{{cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/|title=Affirmative Action|publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|date=1 April 2009}}</ref> The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the United States, is considered by its proponents to be justified by [[disparate impact]].
−
A certain group or gender may be less proportionately represented in an area, often employment or education, due predominantly, in the view of proponents, to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. The theory is that a simple adoption of [[meritocracy|meritocratic]] principles along the lines of [[race-blind|race-blindness]] or [[gender-blind|gender-blindness]] will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons:
  
−
*Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.
  
−
*Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.
  
−
*Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.
  
−
The history of "affirmative" or "positive" remedies command the wrongdoer to do something. In contrast, "negative" remedies command the wrongdoer not to do something or to stop doing something.
  
   
  +
==Quotas==
−
Past discrimination will be sufficiently countered that such a strategy will no longer be necessary: the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large.
  
   
  +
Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste based quotas are used in [[Reservation in India]]. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Affirmative-Action.html |title=Affirmative Action |publisher=Labor-employment-law.lawyers.com |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
Though affirmative action in the United States is primarily associated with race and gender, the [[American civil rights movement]] originally gave as its purpose the correction of a history of oppression against all [[working-class]] and low-income people; [[woman|women]] have figured as prominently as [[ethnic minority|ethnic minorities]] among its beneficiaries.{{Citation needed}}
  
   
  +
In 2012, the [[European Union]] Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by the year 2020.<ref>"The EU's Boardroom Quota Battle Is Over, But Women Cannot Yet Rest". http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2012/11/19/the-eus-boardroom-quota-battle-is-over-but-women-cannot-yet-rest/</ref> In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The Justice Chancellor said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.<ref>[http://www.thelocal.se/5871/20061221/ Uppsala discriminated against Swedes], The Local, 21 December 06</ref>
−
Affirmative action in South Africa has a narrower focus, aiming at reversing primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing [[caste]] discrimination.
  
   
  +
==United Nations position==
  +
The International [[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]] stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."<ref name="unhchr.ch">United Nations Committee on Human Rights, [http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/3888b0541f8501c9c12563ed004b8d0e?Opendocument General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10]</ref>
   
  +
The United Nations Human Rights Committee states that "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."<ref name="unhchr.ch"/>
−
==United States==
  
−
In the U.S., affirmative action mostly applies at transition points&mdash;times when individuals are changing their employment or enrollment. Thus, any potential advantage or disadvantage is predominantly conferred upon working age adults who hope to improve their lot through a change in employment or the pursuit of educational opportunity. <!--(Um, this needs to be rewritten because it is jargon and conjecture)-->
  
   
  +
==National approaches==
−
This arrangement has the greatest impact on young people, while maintaining the status and position of established members of society. This overall framework was established by Presidential Decree in March [[1961]] by President Kennedy, but has evolved significantly.
  
  +
{{See also|Reserved political positions}}
   
  +
In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "[[Color blindness (race)|color blind]]", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in [[reverse discrimination]].
−
===Disputes Specific to the US===
  
−
The [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that no State deny any person the "equal protection of the laws." Opponents of affirmative action have challenged its constitutionality under this provision, arguing that government-imposed group preferences deny the equal protection of the laws to those who do not belong to the preferred groups.
  
   
  +
In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action."
−
Although it is well known which ethnic groups and races are preferred or "protected" by the Government, almost no list or enumeration is made in writing, presumably because of a fear that such a list would be held unconstitutional as a form of invidious discrimination against groups not on the list.
  
   
  +
===The Americas===
−
===Implementation in universities===
  
−
When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that groups such as males or those of [[Europe]]an descent have derived from [[racism]] (including [[institutional racism]] and unconscious racism), [[sexism]] (similarly), and results of historical circumstances.
  
   
  +
====Brazil====
−
In the U.S., the most prominent form of affirmative action centers on access to education, particularly admission to universities and other forms of tertiary instruction. Race, ethnicity, native language, social class, geographical origin, parental attendance of the university in question ([[Legacy preferences|legacy admissions]]), and/or gender are often taken into account when assessing the meaning of an applicant's grades and test scores.
  
  +
{{Further|Vestibular}}
   
  +
Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are also quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for people with disabilities in the civil public services.<ref>Plummer, Robert. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5357842.stm "Black Brazil Seeks a Better Future."] BBC News São Paulo, 25 September 2006. 16 November 2006</ref> The [[Democrats (Brazil)|Democrats]] party, accusing the board of directors of the [[University of Brasília]] of "Nazism", appealed to the [[Supreme Federal Court]] the [[constitutionality]] of the quotas the University reserves for minorities.<ref>{{cite web|author=Por Rodrigo Haidar e Filipe Coutinho |url=http://www.conjur.com.br/2009-jul-20/dem-unb-ressuscitou-ideais-nazistas-suspensao-matriculas |title=DEM entra com ADPF contra cotas raciais |language={{pt icon}} |publisher=Conjur.com.br |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref> The Supreme Court unanimously approved their constitutionality on 26 April 2012.<ref>{{cite web | author= Débora Santos |url =http://g1.globo.com/vestibular-e-educacao/noticia/2012/04/stf-decide-por-unanimidade-pela-constitucionalidade-das-cotas-raciais.html | title=Supremo decide pro unanimidade pela constiucionalidade das cotas |language={{pt icon}}| publisher=g1.globo.com | accessdate=3June2012}}</ref>
−
For example, the college admission chances of a female university student will tend to be equal to that of a male student with SAT scores fifty points higher than hers.
  
   
  +
====Canada====
−
Individuals can also be awarded scholarships and have fees paid on the basis of criteria listed above.
  
  +
{{Further|Employment equity (Canada)|Federal Contractors' Program}}
  +
The equality section of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not ''require'' legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of [[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 15]] states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
   
  +
The [[Canadian Employment Equity Act]] requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and [[visible minorities]]. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in [[Northwest Territories]] in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/employment/affirmativeaction/ |title=GNWT – Human Resources – Affirmative Action |publisher=Hr.gov.nt.ca |date=3 April 2012 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
In the U.S., affirmative action programs at universities benefit mostly [[African Americans]], [[Hispanic Americans]], [[Native Americans in the United States|Native Americans]] and [[women]] (in engineering and the physical sciences). [[Asian Americans]], although a racial minority, do not benefit at most colleges because the rate of college education among Asian Americans is higher than the other racial groups (including whites). See [[model minority]] for more information.
  
   
  +
====United States====
−
An affirmative action study by Princeton sociologists in 2005 attempted to break down and compare the effects of the practice among racial and special groups. The data from the study represent admissions disadvantage and advantage in terms of [[SAT]] points (on the old 1600-point scale):
  
  +
{{Main|Affirmative action in the United States}}
−
* Blacks: +230
  
  +
Affirmative action was first created from [[Executive Order 10925]], which was signed by President [[John F. Kennedy]] on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".<ref>{{cite web
−
* Hispanics: +185
  
  +
| publisher = U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
−
* Asians: -50
  
  +
| title = Executive Order 10925 – Establishing The President's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity
−
* Recruited athletes: +200
  
  +
| url = http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html
−
* Legacies (children of alumni): +160
  
  +
| accessdate =5/2/2010| archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20100527213307/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html| archivedate= 27 May 2010 <!--DASHBot-->| deadurl= no}}</ref>
−
[http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf Study (PDF)]
  
   
  +
On 24 September 1965, President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed [[Executive Order 11246]], thereby replacing [[Executive Order 10925]] and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".<ref name="The Federal Register"/> Affirmative action was extended to women by [[Executive Order 11375]] which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name="Affirmative Action"/> The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://employeeissues.com/discrimination_laws.htm|title=Federal Employment Discrimination Laws|publisher=EmployeeIssues.com|accessdate=18 May 2010}}</ref>
−
The estimates for blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, probably understate the disparity. Standardized tests tend to overpredict for individual, high-scoring members of populations with weaker test scores [http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_bayes.html][http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/dct.htm]. (One's SAT score predicts a certain level of performance. If one performs above this level, the test underpredicted; if the reverse, it overpredicted.) Thus, according to these analyses, accounting for group differences, a white with a score of 1,200 would actually be more, not equally, able on average than a black or Hispanic with the same score. Critics say that this failure to adjust scores to improve the test's [[predictive validity]] distorts the true scores of minorities, and indirectly everyone, as admissions is a zero sum game. Adjusting for this tendency would likely result in more controversy, however, as it is easily misconstrued.
  
   
  +
Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,<ref>[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080205/LOCAL/80205048 Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias; also see [[Norma M. Riccucci]]. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002]</ref> and has been questioned upon its [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'', 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor—a small plus factor—when admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems, such as the one previously used by the University of Michigan Law School, are unconstitutional.<ref>[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/03highlts.html#2 Highlights of the 2002–2003 Supreme Court Term]</ref> Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California ([[California Civil Rights Initiative]]), Michigan ([[Michigan Civil Rights Initiative]]), and Washington ([[Initiative 200]]) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.<ref>{{cite book|author=Steven M. Teles|title=The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=MTps-NK20jAC&pg=PA235|year=2010|publisher=Princeton University Press|pages=235–7}}</ref>
−
Additionally, class rank, a statistic widely used in admissions, likely confers advantage on underperforming minorities. In California, Florida, and Texas public universities, affirmative action has been replaced with class rank and other programs. Class rank tends to discriminate against those at relatively competitive high schools, simply because high schools are not uniform in student ability. Thus a student with grades in the top ten percent at a mediocre school is unlikely to be equivalent or superior to a student at an elite school. Class rank, as a result, is more a measure of one's peers than of oneself. As such, some high schools refuse to rank their students. [http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/04-22-05Fischer.htm]
  
   
  +
===Asia===
−
=== In individual U.S. states ===
  
−
Individual U.S. states e.g., Missouri, California, and Washington also have orders that prohibit discrimination and outline affirmative action requirements with regard to race, creed, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, and disability status.
  
   
−
===History===
 +
====Israel====
  +
A class-based affirmative action policy was incorporated into the admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel during the early to mid-2000s. In evaluating the eligibility of applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed.This policy made the four institutions, especially the echelons at the most selective departments, more diverse than they otherwise would have been. The rise in geographic, economic and demographic diversity of a student population suggests that the plan’s focus on structural determinants of disadvantage yields broad diversity dividends.<ref>^Alon, Sigal. 2011. “The Diversity Dividends of a Need-blind and Color-blind Affirmative Action Policy” Social Science Research, 40(6):1494-1505., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X11001037</ref>
−
*''The 14th Amendment''
  
−
Mandates that no State deny any person the "equal protection of the laws".
  
   
  +
====India====
−
*''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', 1954
  
  +
{{Main|Reservation in India}}
−
:The NAACP filed on behalf of a black student, Linda Brown, who was transported out of her white neighborhood to attend a black school in Topeka, Kansas. The Supreme Court ruled that separate educational facilities were "inherently unequal" and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The next year the Court ordered segregated districts to integrate with "all deliberate speed."
  
   
  +
Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities [[Caste system in India|defined primarily by their caste]].
−
*''Executive Order [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order] No. 10,925'', 1961 [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm], issued by President Kennedy
 
   
  +
==== Sri Lanka ====
−
*''Compensatory Preferential Treatment'', 1962
  
  +
In 1971 the [[Policy of standardisation|Standardization policy]] of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British [[colonialist]]s. The British had practised [[communal]] favoritism towards Christians and the minority [[Tamil people|Tamil community]] for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a policy of [[divide and rule|divide and conquer]].
−
James Farmer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Farmer%2C_Jr.], founder of the Congress of Racial Equality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Racial_Equality], held a meeting with then vice president Lyndon B. Johnson. Farmer proposed that a program that he called Compensatory Preferential Treatment should be put in place in order to advance the equality of the black race. In 1965, Johnson (then president) renamed Compensatory Preferential Treatment "affirmative action" in a famous speech at Howard University, which became the national justification for moving the country beyond nondiscrimination to a more vigorous effort to improve the status of black Americans:
  
   
  +
==== Japan ====
−
"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."[http://www.policyreview.org/jan98/equality.html]
  
  +
Admission to universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria; however, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to [[Burakumin]] at municipality level.
   
  +
==== People's Republic of China ====
−
It was a counter-argument to the previously prevailing notion of meritocracy. The skills that merit-based admission rewards are cultivated in children by parents with money. Affirmative action was to be a method by which minorities could eventually develop those skills in their own children.
  
  +
"Preferential policies" required some of the top positions in governments be distributed to [[Ethnic minorities in China|ethnic minorities]] and women. Also, many universities are required by government to give preferred admissions to ethnic minorities.<ref>[http://www.moe.gov.cn/edoas/website18/30/info26630.htm2007 Graduate Student Admission Ordainment – Ministry of Education, PRC]</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mzzjw.gd.gov.cn/mzjy/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=541 |title=Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commission of Guangdong Province |publisher=Mzzjw.gd.gov.cn |date=15 October 2007 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
   
  +
==== South Korea ====
−
*''[[Operation Breadbasket]]''
  
  +
Admission to universities is also determined by the strict entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. But most of all Korean universities at the top level are adapting some affirmative actions in cases of Chinese ethnic minority, North Korean refugees, etc. in their recruiting new students. Besides, national universities have been pressed by the Korean government, so now they are trying to meet the governmental goal which is to recruit a proportion of female professors.
−
Also during this time Martin Luther King Jr and Ralph Abernathy were bringing their southern civil rights movement to the Chicago area. One important part of this strategy was Operation Breadbasket. This operation consisted of targeting local employers and threatening boycotts unless more African Americans were hired by the business. Many of these businesses operated largely in African American neighborhoods and thus had a large customer base to worry about losing if a boycott ensued.[http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/operation_breadbasket.htm]
  
   
  +
==== Malaysia ====
−
*''[[The revised Philadelphia plan]]''
  
  +
{{Main|Ketuanan Melayu}}
−
During the Nixon administration, affirmative action was adopted as a federal mandate for companies with federal contracts and for labor unions whose workers were engaged in those projects. This "revised Philadelphia plan" was spearheaded by Labor Department official Arthur Fletcher.[http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:20649393&ctrlInfo=Round20%3AMode20e%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=]
  
   
  +
The [[Malaysian New Economic Policy]] or NEP serves as a form of affirmative action. Malaysia provides affirmative action to the majority because in general, the Malays have lower income than the Chinese who have traditionally been involved in businesses and industries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Malaysia-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html |title=Encyclopedia of the Nations, "Malaysia Poverty and Wealth" |publisher=Nationsencyclopedia.com |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref> Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, with [[Malay (ethnic group)|Malays]] making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 30% of the population are [[Chinese Malaysian|Malaysians of Chinese descent]], while [[Indian Malaysian|Malaysians of Indian descent]] comprise about 8% of the population. Government policy provides preferential placement for ethnic Malays, and 95% of all new intakes for the army, hospital nurses, police, and other government institutions are Malays. As of 2004, only 7% of all government servants are ethnic Chinese, a drop from 30% in 1960. All eight of the directors of the national petroleum company, [[Petronas]], are Malays, and only 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese. Additionally, 95% of all government contracts are awarded to ethnic Malays.<ref>[http://web.archive.org-main.us/web/20070928011407/http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=128113&forum_id=89 Bumiputra Policy in Malaysia]{{archive link|date=April 2012}}</ref>
−
In the 1960s and 1970s, affirmative action became overwhelmingly popular on campuses across America as mass student protests spurred schools to actively recruit minority applicants. National excitement died down in the late 1970s, and quickly turned to national controversy.
 
   
  +
(''See also [[Bumiputra]]'') The mean income for Malays, Chinese and Indians in 1957/58 were 134, 288 and 228 respectively. In 1967/68 it was 154, 329 and 245, and in 1970 it was 170, 390 and 300. Mean income disparity ratio for Chinese/Malays rose from 2.1 in 1957/58 to 2.3 in 1970, whereas for Indians/Malays the disparity ratio also rose from 1.7 to 1.8 in the same period.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Perumal |first=M. |year=1989 |title=Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Malaysia, 1957–1984 |journal=Singapore Economic Review |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=33–46 }}</ref> The Malays viewed Independence as restoring their proper place in their own country's socioeconomic order while the non-Malays were opposing government efforts to advance Malay political primacy and economic welfare.
−
*''[[U.S. Executive Order 11246 and Executive Order 11375]]'', 1965
  
−
The Johnson administration embraced affirmative action in 1965, by issuing U.S Executive order 11246, later amended by Executive order 11375. The order, as amended, aims "to correct the effects of past and present discrimination". It prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, skin color, religion, gender, or national origin. The order requires that contractors take affirmative action to ensure that "protected class, underutilized applicants" are employed when available, and that employees are treated without negative discriminatory regard to their protected-class status.
  
   
  +
=== Oceania ===
−
The order specifically requires certain organizations accepting federal funds to take affirmative action to increase employment of members of preferred racial or ethnic groups and women. Any organization with fifty or more employees and an aggregate revenue exceeding $50,000 from a single federal contract during a twelve month period must have a written affirmative action plan. This plan must include goals and timetables for achieving full utilization of women and members of racial minorities, in quotas based on an analysis of the current workforce compared to the availability in the general labor pool of women and members of racial minorities..
  
   
  +
==== New Zealand ====
−
The order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs of the Employment Standards Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor and by the Office of Civil Rights of the Justice Department.
  
  +
Individuals of [[Māori people|Māori]] or other [[Polynesia]]n descent are often afforded improved access to university courses, or have scholarships earmarked specifically for them.<ref name=cre>{{cite web|title=Affirmative action around the world|url=http://www.catalystmagazine.org/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0l0.RefLocID-0hg01b001006009.Lang-EN.htm|work=Catalyst|publisher=Commission for Racial Equality|author=Commission for Racial Equality |authorlink=Commission for Racial Equality |archiveurl=http://www.juliushonnor.com/catalyst/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew0l0.RefLocID-0hg01b001006009.Lang-EN.htm|archivedate=2007-09-24|date=2006-09-29}}</ref> Affirmative action is provided for under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993<ref>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304672.html</ref> and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.<ref>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225519.html</ref>
   
  +
===Europe===
−
*''[[Griggs v. Duke Power]]''' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=401&invol=424 401 U.S. 424 (1971)]'', 1971
  
   
  +
==== Finland ====
−
*''[[Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]]'', 1964
  
  +
In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for persons who reach a certain standard of skills in the [[Swedish language]]; for students admitted in these quotas, the education is partially arranged in Swedish.<ref name="Helsinki med">{{cite web|title=Hakuopas 2011. Lääketieteen ja hammaslääketieteen opiskelijavalinnat|url=http://www.med.helsinki.fi/peruskoulutus/docs/opiskelijaksi/hakuopas_2011.pdf|publisher=Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki|accessdate=4 June 2011|language=Finnish|format=PDF|year=2011|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20120326194512/http://www.med.helsinki.fi/peruskoulutus/docs/opiskelijaksi/hakuopas_2011.pdf|archivedate=26 March 2012}}</ref><ref name="Helsinki law">{{cite web|title=Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta. Hakuopas 2011|url=http://www.helsinki.fi/oikeustiede/opiskelijaksi/valintakokeet/2011/hakuopas_2011.pdf|publisher=Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki|accessdate=4 June 2011|page=3|language=Finnish|format=PDF|year=2011}}</ref> The purpose of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of professionals with skills in Swedish are educated for nation-wide needs.<ref name="Helsinki med" /> The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.
   
  +
==== France ====
−
*''[[Section 501 of the Rehabilitartion Act of 1973]]'', 1973
  
  +
No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 [[French Constitution]].<http://thisnation.com/library/france.html> Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Priority Education Zones", are granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as [[Sciences Po]]).{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}
−
Section 717 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require all United States Federal Agencies to implement affirmative employment opportunity programs for all federal employees. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 715 (MD 715) provides guidance as to how such programs are to be implemented.
  
   
  +
The French Ministry of Defence tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African ancestry. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant<ref>Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire" in ''Armée d'Ajourd'hui'', 1991.</ref> in the Ministry of Defence newspaper (''Armées d'aujourd'hui''), this driving license and rank project was cancelled. After the Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arabian-French students was made but Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French constitution. However, highly ranked French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain amount of students from impoverished families.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2008/12/17/le-plan-sarkozy-pour-favoriser-l-egalite-reelle-des-chances_1132074_823448.html#ens_id=1128487° |title="Le Plan Sarkozy", '&#39;Le Monde'&#39; |work=Le Monde |date=17 December 2008 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref><br />Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All male director nominations will be invalid as long as the condition is not met, and financial penalties may apply for other directors.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vie-publique.fr/actualite/panorama/texte-discussion/proposition-loi-relative-representation-equilibree-femmes-hommes-au-sein-conseils-administration-surveillance-egalite-professionnelle.html |title=Vie Publique |publisher=Vie-publique.fr |date=25 June 2002 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
*'''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]''' [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/324/ 438 U.S. 265 (1978)]
  
−
:The [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] held that the [[University of California, Davis|UC Davis]] medical school admissions program violated the equal protection clause with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. However, the court ruled that race could be one of the factors in university admissions.
  
   
  +
==== Germany ====
−
*'''[[City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.]]''', [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=488&invol=469 488 U.S. 469 (1989)] (strict scrutiny standard to state and local programs).
  
  +
[[Image:Dahrendorf.jpg|thumb|[[Ralf Dahrendorf]] was in favour of affirmative action]]
   
  +
Article 3 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German Basic Law]] provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover, the handicapped should be preferred to healthy people. This is typical for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase diversity in this line of work". In recent years, there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. Germany's ''[[The Left (Germany)|Left Party]]'' brought up the discussion about affirmative action in [[Education in Germany|Germany's school system]]. According to [[Stefan Zillich]], quotas should be "a possibility" to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a ''[[Gymnasium (Germany)|Gymnasium]]'' (University-preparatory school).<ref>Susanne Vieth-Entus (29. December 2008): "Sozialquote: Berliner Gymnasien sollen mehr Schüler aus armen Familien aufnehmen". Der Tagesspiegel</ref> Headmasters of ''Gymnasien'' have objected, saying that this type of policy would "be a disservice" to poor children.<ref>Martin Klesmann (23 February 2009). "'Kinder aus Neukölln würden sich nicht integrieren lassen' – Ein Politiker und ein Schulleiter streiten über Sozialquoten an Gymnasien". Berliner Zeitung</ref>
−
*'''[[Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio]]''', 1971 [http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/cases/wards.htm 490 U.S. 642 (1989)] revised the standards established by the 1971 Griggs decision.
  
   
  +
In 2009, the [[Berlin Senate]] decided that Berlin's Gymnasium should no longer be allowed to handpick all of their students. It was ruled that while Gymnasien should be able to pick 70% to 65% of their students, the other places at the Gymnasien are to be allocated by lottery. Every child will be able to enter the lottery, no matter how he or she performed in primary school. It is hoped that this policy will increase the number of working class students attending a Gymnasium.<ref name="Heinz-Peter Meidinger 2009">Heinz-Peter Meidinger: "Berliner Schullotterie". Profil 07-08/2009 (24 August. 2009)</ref>
−
*'''[[Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992]]''', 1992
  
−
People with disabilities as a group were more fully recognized as being protected by the .
  
   
  +
[[The Left (Germany)|The Left]] proposed that Berlin Gymnasien should no longer be allowed to expel students who perform poorly so that the students who won a Gymnasium place in the lottery have a fair chance of graduating from that school.<ref name="Heinz-Peter Meidinger 2009"/> It is not clear yet if Berlin's senate will decide in favour of [[The Left (Germany)|The Lefts]] proposal. There is also a discussion going on if affirmative action should be employed to help the children and grandchildren of the so-called ''[[Gastarbeiter]]'' gain better access to German universities. One prominent proponent of this was Lord [[Ralf Dahrendorf]].<ref>Christine Prußky: "Zuwanderer an die Unis – Soziologe Ralf Dahrendorf fordert Migrantenquote"</ref> It is argued that the Gastarbeiter willingly came to Germany to help build the industry and this should be honored.
−
*'''[[Adarand Constructors v. Peña]]''', [http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/00-730/00-730.mer.ami.mbeldef.pdf 515 U.S. 200 (1995)], 1995
  
−
:established strict scrutiny standard of review for race and ethnic-based Federal Affirmative Action programs.
  
   
  +
==== Norway ====
−
*'''[[Hopwood v. Texas]]''', [http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-hopwood.htm 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.1996)]''', 1996
 
  +
In all [[public limited company|public limited companies (PCL)]] boards, either gender should be represented by 40%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19970613-045-032.html#6-3 |title=LOV-1997-06-13-45 Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven) |publisher=Lovdata.no |accessdate=29 July 2010}}</ref> This affects roughly 400 companies of over 300.000 in total.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dn.no/forsiden/naringsliv/article246166.ece |title=27.000 flere bedrifter i Norge |publisher=dn.no |accessdate=28 August 2011}}</ref>
−
(first successful legal challenge to racial preferences in student admissions since ''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]'').
  
   
  +
==== Macedonia ====
−
California
  
  +
Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}
−
*'''[[Proposition 209]]''', 1996
  
−
forbids many forms of Affirmative Action. Conservatives complain that state officials have widely disobeyed it. Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions.
  
   
  +
==== Romania ====
−
Washington
  
  +
[[Roma (Romani subgroup)|Roma]] people are allocated quotas for access to public schools and state universities.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mmuncii.ro/old/ro/domenii-politici-familiale-incluziune-si-asistenta-sociala-romii---progrese-inregistrate-in-romania-in-perioada-2007---2008-540-view.html | title=Romii - PROGRESE ÎNREGISTRATE ÎN ROMÂNIA ÎN PERIOADA 2007 - 2008 | accessdate=January 30, 2013}}</ref> There is evidence that some ethnic Romanians exploit the system so they can be themselves admitted to universities, which has drawn criticism from Roma representatives.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.studentie.ro/campus/admiterea_in_facultati_pe_locuri_pentru_rromi_un_fenomen_ce_trebuie_s/c-70-a-149985 | title=Admiterea in facultati pe locuri pentru rromi, un fenomen ce trebuie stopat | accessdate=January 30, 2013}}</ref>
−
*'''[[Initiative 200]]''', 1998
  
−
in Washington was overwhelmingly passed by the electorate. Taking effect on December 3, 1998, it applies to all local governments, including counties, cities, and towns. I-200 prohibits "preferential treatment" based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. The Washington State Legislature has generally been in favor of affirmative action and appears to wish to reinstate aspects of it. However, despite several proposals, they have not yet done so.
  
   
  +
==== Slovakia ====
−
*'''Smith v. University of Washington''' 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2000) [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=9th&no=99-35209] [5]
  
  +
The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution.<ref>{{cite web|last=Goldirova |first=Renata |url=http://euobserver.com/9/20123 |title=Slovakia bans positive discrimination |publisher=Euobserver.com |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
   
  +
==== Sweden ====
−
*''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'', 2003
  
  +
Special treatments of certain groups are commonplace in Sweden. Leveraging of the opportunities of these groups is encouraged by the state. One example is the police, who give women and people from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds concessions when it comes to testing for entrance to the police academy.{{Citation needed|date=May 2011}}
−
:The Supreme Court ruled (in a 5-4 margin with Sandra Day O'Connor being the swing vote) that race could be used as a criterion in school admissions and that it would not be in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly-tailored policy was constitutional and appropriate "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
 
−
*''[[Gratz v. Bollinger]]'', 2003
  
−
:The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's point-based undergraduate admissions policy that took race into account numerically was too mechanical and unconstitutional.
  
   
  +
==== United Kingdom ====
−
An attorney who filed an amicus brief on behalf of Pennsylvania legislators and former legislators in Grutter v. Bollinger, Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."
  
  +
The [[Good Friday Agreement]] required the [[Police Service of Northern Ireland]] to recruit equal numbers of [[Catholic Church|Catholics]] and [[Protestantism|Protestants]] in order to reduce any possible bias towards Protestants.{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} The [[Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002]] allowed the use of [[all-women shortlists]] to select more women as election candidates. {{Citation needed|date=April 2013}}
   
  +
The [[Equality Act 2010]] established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15 |title=Equality Act 2010 |publisher=Legislation.gov.uk |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
*''[[Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 149 Wn.2d 660, 72 P.3d 151 (2003)]]'', 2003
  
−
The Washington State Supreme Court interpreted I-200 to forbid affirmative actions that promote a "less qualified" applicant over a "better qualified" one, but not programs that sought to achieve diversity without consideration of individual merit.
 
   
  +
In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public services.<ref name="cre"/><ref name=govuk>{{cite web|title=Types of discrimination`|url=https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination|work=Discrimination: your rights|publisher=GOV.UK|accessdate=7 April 2013|author=GOV.UK|authorlink=Gov.uk|date=2013-04-04}}</ref><ref>Personneltoday.com [http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/01/17/33430/is-there-a-case-for-positive-discrimination.html "Is there a case for positive discrimination?"]</ref>
−
In the beginning, racial classifications that identified race were inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. These classifications would only be upheld if necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest. Later the U.S. Supreme Court decided that racial classifications that benefited underrepresented minorities were to only be upheld if necessary and promoted a compelling governmental purpose. (See Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.) There is no clear guidance about when government action is not "compelling", and such rulings are rare.
  
   
−
===Results===
 +
=== Africa ===
−
[[UCLA]] professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of affirmative action in [[law school]]s. The article presents a study that, among other things, shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school, and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended, as black students would instead attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched with their classmates, and thus perform better. The article has sparked heated initial reaction and controversy, and critics are reviewing the study's methodology. Sander helped to develop a socioeconomically-based affirmative action plan for the UCLA School of Law after the passage of [[California Proposition 209 (1996)|Proposition 209 in 1996]] which prohibited the use of racial preferences by public universities [[California]] schools. This change occurred after studies that showed that the graduation rate of blacks at UCLA was 41%, compared to 73% for whites.
  
   
  +
====South Africa====
−
Another consequence of affirmative action as it is practiced in U.S. universities is that it widens the gap in academic qualifications between different ethnic groups attending the same university by granting admission to preferred students based on different, lower requirements. The smallest gap is usually found at the most prestigious universities, who actively recruit the most qualified students from preferred minority groups The smallest gap is found at [[Harvard University|Harvard]], where the gap between African American and Asian American students is about 90 SAT points. [[UC Berkeley]] has one of the highest gaps at about 300 SAT points.
 
  +
{{Refimprove section|date=February 2011}}
  +
{{see also|Black Economic Empowerment}}
   
  +
=====Apartheid=====
−
In order to avoid a system of racial quotas, the State of [[Texas]] passed a law guaranteeing entry to any state university of a student's choice if they finished in the top 10% of their graduating class. Despite fears that this would lower standards, minority students from schools with lesser performances are claimed to do as well as students from better schools, and the average SAT and GPA scores of applicants to Texas universities has reportedly not fallen. Nevertheless, the top 10% law is highly controversial on the grounds that it overemphasizes GPA, and a bill has recently passed in the Texas House (but not the Senate) strongly limiting it [http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/legislature/11627400.htm].
  
  +
The [[Apartheid]] government, as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned companies and partly as a result of this, the majority of employers in South Africa were white people. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Skilled jobs were also reserved for white people, and blacks were largely used as unskilled labour, enforced by legislation including the [[Mines and Works Act]], the [[Job Reservations Act]], the [[Native Building Workers Act]], the [[Apprenticeship Act]] and the [[Bantu Education Act]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.southendmuseum.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=20 |title=Job Reservations Act |publisher=South End Museum |accessdate=31 March 2011}}</ref> creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sahistory.org.za/pages/library-resources/onlinebooks/Luli/Gold-and-workers/part%203/unit15.htm#1 |title=White Workers and the Colour Bar |publisher=Sahistory.org.za |accessdate=31 March 2011}}</ref> For example, in early 20th century South Africa mine owners preferred hiring black workers because they were cheaper.<ref name=enc>[http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Discrimination.html Discrimination], The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics</ref> Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the blacks' employment opportunities.<ref name=enc/>
   
  +
Since the 1960s the Apartheid laws had been weakened. Consequently, from 1975 to 1990 the real wages of black manufacturing workers rose by 50%, that of whites by 1%.<ref name=africa>[http://www.economist.com/node/244570 Race, law and poverty in the new South Africa], The Economist, 30 September 1999</ref>
−
Some theorize affirmative action has brought about vast improvement in the class stratification of minorities. From 1960 to 1995, according to data in The Shape of the River by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, the percentage of blacks aged 25–29 who had graduated from college rose from 5.4 to 15.4%, the percentage of blacks in law school grew from below 1 to 7.5%, and the percentage of blacks in medical school increased from 2.2 to 8.1%.
  
   
  +
The economic and politically structured society during the apartheid ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation and income within labour markets, which provided advantages to certain groups and characteristics of people. This in due course was the motivation to introduce affirmative action in South Africa, following the end of Apartheid.<ref name=prob>Stokes, G. (2010, 03 15). The problem with affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.fanews.co.za/article.asp?Front_Page_Features~25,Stokes_Stage~1145,The_problem_with_affirmative_action~7618</ref>
−
Others contend that affirmative action, per se, cannot be considered the primary agent of change for the growth of black employment in the majority of employment categories in the U.S., as official affirmative action employment programs applied only to government and government contractor hiring. Most Americans worked for small- and medium-sized businesses that did not employ affirmative action programs. Many of these companies, however, espoused the concept of Equal Opportunity Employment: a pledge to not discriminate negatively in hiring and promotion decisions on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, and in some venues, sexual orientation. Moreover, the growth of the black middle class was on an upward trajectory in the 1950s and 1960s prior to the implementation of the vast majority of affirmative action programs.
  
   
  +
=====Post-apartheid Employment Equity=====
−
While the growth in many areas related to black people have been tremendous over the past three decades (the size of the black middle class, the rate of black homeownership, the number of black men and women in managerial and executive positions, black family wealth), there are those who feel that the lingering problems from a history of black oppression are far from gone for many black people, especially those in the underclass.
  
  +
Following the transition to democracy in 1994, the [[African National Congress]]-led government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct previous imbalances (a policy known as '''Employment Equity'''). As such, all employers were compelled by law to employ previously disenfranchised groups (blacks, [[Indian South Africans|Indians]], and [[Coloureds]]). A related, but distinct concept is [[Black Economic Empowerment]].<ref>[http://www.ecsecc.org/files/publications/120307130010.pdf ]{{dead link|date=March 2011}}</ref>
   
  +
The [[Employment Equity Act]] and the [[Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment]] Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by advancing people from designated groups. The designated groups who are to be advanced include all people of colour, women (including white women) and [[people with disabilities]] (including whites). Employment Equity legislation requires companies employing more than 50 people to design and implement plans to improve the representativity of workforce demographics, and report them to the [[Department of Labour (South Africa)|Department of Labour]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.southafrica.info/services/rights/employmentequity.htm |title=Employment Equity FAQ |publisher=Southafrica.info |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
==Other Countries==
  
−
In some countries which have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal by a requirement to treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "[[race-blind]]", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in [[reverse discrimination]].
  
   
  +
Employment Equity also forms part of a company's [[Black Economic Empowerment]] scorecard: in a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.
−
In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action", as opposed to "positive discrimination".
  
   
  +
The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-02-03-bees-glass-slipper |title=BEE's Glass Slipper |publisher=Mg.co.za |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292679?oid=346519&sn=2009+Detail+no+image&pid=295799 |title=BEE: A man made disaster |publisher=Moneyweb.co.za |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref><ref name="fin24.com">{{cite web|url=http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-24_2564628 |title='SAB deal to enrich black elite': Fin24: Companies |publisher=Fin24 |accessdate=29 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5340048 |title=Business Report – Home – Motlanthe warns BEE council has failed |publisher=Busrep.co.za |date=9 February 2010 |accessdate=29 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-20-manyi-vows-to-get-tough-over-bee |title=Manyi vows to get tough over BEE – Mail & Guardian Online: The smart news source |publisher=Mg.co.za |accessdate=29 July 2010}}</ref>
−
===Consultations===
  
−
Another, more indirect form of affirmative action works through "consultations", whereby institutions such as [[school]]s or health-care facilities are viewed as centred on the majority culture, and therefore consultation with other ethnic groups are specified as a remedy. This can cause accusations of double-standards, as in practice representatives of all ethnic groups ''except the majority group'' receive consultation on institutional workings. Proponents discount this as being irrelevant, as they claim consultation with the majority group is pointless, as the institution's management is centered on their culture anyway.
  
   
  +
These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.<ref name=africa/> The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.<ref name=africa/> Moreover, the [[Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa|Supreme Court]] has ruled that in principle blacks may be favored, but in practice this should not lead to unfair discrimination against the others.<ref name=africa/> Yet it is impossible to favor somebody without discriminating against others.<ref name=africa/>
−
===India===
  
−
Affirmative action has historically been implemented in India in the form of [[Reservation in India|reservation]] or quotas in government positions, employment and education for lower [[caste]]s and minorities. The first records of these policies are seen in the late 19th century in the princely states of Mysore in South India and Baroda and Kolhapur in western India. Reservations in government jobs were introduced in 1918 in Mysore in favour of a number of castes and communities that had little share in the administration. In another instance, upon petition from the Muslim community, the British government at the time made provisions in the Government of India acts of 1909 and 1919 granting Muslims share in the administration and other facilities. In the communal award of 1935, legislative seats were reserved for members of the Muslim, Sikh, Maratha, Parsi, Christian, European, and Anglo-Indian communities. In addition seats were reserved for depressed classes within the Hindu community. The scheduled castes were given 8.5 reservation in central services and other facilities in 1942. In independent India, provision for reservation in legislature was made in the constitution until 1960, recently extended until 2010. Provision for public services was made at the same time with no time limit. More recently in 1990, the implementation of the [[Mandal commission]]s' recommendations have been in the social and political limelight. Despite widespread agitation (mostly among students), reservation for the backward classes were upheld to the extent of 27 per cent (this was in addition to the 22.5% already reserved for scheduled castes and tribes, bringing the total of 'open' seats to only 50%). [http://www.ambedkar.org/research/Bhagwandas.pdf]
  
   
  +
=====Affirmative Action Purpose=====
−
===Other countries===
  
  +
As mentioned previously affirmative action was introduced through the Employment Equality Act, 55 in 1998, 4 years after the end of Apartheid. This act was passed to promote the constitutional right of equality and exercise true democracy. This idea was to eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination, to achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of our people, to promote economic development and efficiency in the workforce and to give effects to the obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour Organisation.<ref name=prob/><ref name=aff>Bergmann, B. (1999). The continuing need for affirmative action. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39(5), 757-768. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062976999000277</ref>
−
*[[Belgium]]. The [[Flanders|Flemish]] government proposed in January 2006 a measure that will make some job opportunities available exclusively to immigrants, disabled and elderly people for the first three weeks. [http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_159838.html]
  
−
*[[Bosnia-Herzegovina]]. Women must represent at least 29% of all politicians.
  
−
*[[Brazil]]. Some Brazilian Universities (State or Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and the handicapped. There are also quotas for the disabled in the civil public services.
  
−
*[[Taiwan]] has a interesting point observe in the near future, where an increase of South-east Asian migrant workers and wives, might lead to social disparity in treatment. Second generation of Taiwanese-South Asian are starting to be a focal point to social oppurtunities in a purely Han Chinese society. In the past a source of social problem, was the tension between Taiwanese that were on the island before 1949, (Original Province People), and the Chinese that came to the island following the retreat of the Nationalist government, (Outer Province People). See [[February 28 Incident]]
 
−
*[[China]]. The People's Republic allows non-Han ethnic groups (around 9% of the population) to be exempt from the [[One-child policy]], and there is a quota for minority representatives in the [[National Assembly]] in Beijing, as well as other realms of government.
  
−
*[[European Union]]. 2000/43/EU ([[29 June]] [[2000]]) concerns the application of the principle of equality without regard to race or ethnic origin (ABl. EU Number L 180 p 22), anti-racism directive, to be implemented in national law of the member states.
  
−
*[[Germany]]. Article 3 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German constitution]] provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex or race. In recent years there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. There were programs stating that if men and women had equal qualifications, women had to be preferred for a job. The Government agreed on the details of a anti-discrimination law (Antidiskriminierungsgesetz; ADG) in May 2006, that aims at improving the protection of minorities. The draft follows EU standards but has yet to pass the German Parliament, the [[Bundestag]].
  
−
*[[Greece]]. has quotas setting a lower limit for women participating in election lists of political parties for most of the election processes.
  
−
*[[India]]. In order to redress the historical inequity of the [[caste]] system, certain positions in university and government are reserved for previously oppressed castes. A large percentage of College admissions and government job quotas are reserved for these castes. There have been recent attempts to introduce it into the private job sector and for [[Muslim]] minorities. See the main article [[Reservation in India|here]]
  
−
*[[Japan]]. Spot for universities as well as all the government position (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria. However, there are informal policy to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to [[Burakumin]] at municipality level.
  
−
*[[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]]. Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.
  
−
*[[Malaysia]]. The [[bumiputra]] laws are a form of affirmative action meant to provide more opportunity for the majority ethnic [[Malay people|Malay]] population versus the historical financial dominance of the [[Malaysian Chinese]] and [[Malaysian Indian]] populations.
  
−
*[[New Zealand]]. Individuals of [[Māori]] or other [[Polynesia]]n descent are often afforded preferential access to university courses, and scholarships.
  
−
*[[Slovakia]]. The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. 'providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group' as being against its Constitution. [http://euobserver.com/9/20123] This is seen as an anti-[[gipsy]] decision immediately following [[roma people|roma]] hunger riots, which protested curtailing of social aids in Slovakia.
  
−
*[[South Africa]]. The Employment Equity Act aims to promote and achieve equity in the workplace, by the positive advancement of people from designated groups that have been identified as previously disadvantaged. It is quota-based, with specific required outcomes. By a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programmes, amongst others.
  
−
*[[Southeast Asia]]. In countries such as [[Indonesia]], affirmative action programs give natives preference over [[Han Chinese]] who have immigrated into the country.
  
−
*[[United Kingdom]]. Under the [[1998]] [[Good Friday Agreement]] the law requires that the [[Police Service of Northern Ireland]] recruit equal numbers of [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]]s and non Catholics. However the Monarch may not be a Catholic: this historically discriminatory law has yet to be rescinded.
  
   
  +
Many embraced the Act; however some concluded that the act contradicted itself. The act eliminates unfair discrimination in certain sectors of the national labour market by imposing similar constraints on another.<ref name=prob/>
−
==Disputes==
  
−
===Disputes over Cultural Differences===
  
−
One argument against AA is that it represents government sanctioned [[racial discrimination]], and is demeaning to members of minority groups - that affirmative action wrongly sends a condescending message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits.
  
−
If this argument is to be believed, AA promotes the idea that African-Americans, Hispanic Americans and other often underrepresented minorities do not and can not emphasize education and high academic achievement as much as whites or Asians or "[[Model Minority|Model Minorites]]". This is a reaction to the criticism that [[hip hop culture]] ([[gangsta rap]] culture in particular encourage substandard achievement. (In fact, crime rates and economic conditions were better in the 1990s, the height of the rap movement, than during the 1980s during gang wars in California and general economic instability). It argues that anti-establishment mentality, high family instability, and excessive [[economic materialism]] or [[consumerism]] are not among the cultural factors that have prevented blacks from achieving the same economic opportunity as whites, but that a culture of mediocrity (and government programs, such as AA, which promote it) are. Thus, the minority community, not the government, needs to be empowered and held responsible for eliminating any economic disparity between the races through cultural reform.
  
−
Many supporters of affirmative action charge that those who make this argument are being [[ethnocentric]] and are disingenuously trying to deflect or downplay the role of past and current institutional discrimination of minorities. These critics believe that these proponents are trying to shift the blame onto the victim who was discriminated in the first place in order to justify rolling back government civil rights policies. Furthermore, many critics believe that those who make this argument are being naive, hypocritical, or vague in their quest to 'change the cultural values' of the black community
  
−
Other supporters of affirmative action argue that it benefits society as a whole. They argue that the end goal of AA should not be one culture, but an embrace of all cultural heritages (warts and all) and, by doing so, we increase the quality of the society. This is widely argued in the realm of education. An example of support for this is a study done by Patricia Gurin, who is part of the [[American Psychological Association]]. Gurin found that students who are from a more diverse educational setting had better results in tests designed to measure complex thinking, were more motivated to understand other people’s points of view, were more understanding of differences in cultural environments, and were more confident in their intellectual ability.
  
   
  +
With the introduction of Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) rose additionally in South Africa. The BEE was not a moral initiative to redress the wrongs of the past but to promote growth and strategies that aim to realize a countries full potential. The idea was targeting the weakest link in economics, which was inequality and which would help develop the economy. This is evident in the statement by the Department of Trade and Industry, “As such, this strategy stresses a BEE process that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development, and not merely the redistribution of existing wealth”.<ref name=info>Black economic empowerment. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.southafrica.info/business/trends/empowerment/bee.htm</ref><ref>Franchi, V. (2003). The racialization of affirmative action in organizational discourses: A case study of symbolic racism in post-apartheid south africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(2), 157-187. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176702000913</ref> Similarities between the BEE and affirmative action are apparent; however there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality rather than taking wealth away from the skilled white labourers.<ref name=info/>
−
===Disputes over History===
  
−
Critics of affirmative action believe that it rewards or punishes individuals in the present for what their group is supposed to have done in the past. For example, [[Mike S. Adams]] argues that affirmative action can be summed up as follows:
  
−
Regardless of whether he is guilty of racism, a person is to be punished for racism carried out by other members of his racial group. Regardless of whether he is a victim of racism, a person is entitled to benefits for racism carried out against other members of his racial group.[16]
 
   
  +
The main goal of Affirmative Action is for a country to reach its full potential. This occurrence would result in a completely diverse workforce in economic and social sectors. Thus broadening the economic base and therefore stimulating economic growth.<ref name=dem>Edigheji, O. (2006). Affirmative action and state capacity in a democratic South Africa. Policy: issues & actors,20(4), Retrieved from http://cps.org.za/cps pdf/pia20_4.pdf</ref>
−
Proponents of Affirmative Action respond that such discrepancies that exist are a result of historic segregation. For example, many of the state and city universities had much lower [[tuition]] during the time they were primarily for whites, while tuition at such institutions have grown faster than the rate of inflation now that more minorities are attending. Tuition at the [[City College of New York]] was free up until the 1960s when the students were primarily Italian and Jewish, but now rival those of state universities now that most of the students are Black or Hispanic.
 
−
In fact, however, this college's alumni produced a record (for public colleges) eight [[Nobel]] laureates, all minorities ([[Ashkenazi Jews]].[20]). Further, a qualified minority with 90 average and a good SAT can qualify for honors college. Had [[Thurgood Marshall]] been admitted to Maryland, as a resident of Baltimore he would not have had to pay tuition. Howard, a private institution, had substantial tuition fees, but was at the time (the 1930s) the only ABA-accredited law program at a historically Black university.
  
   
−
===Disputes over Economics===
 +
=====Outcomes=====
  +
Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some positive and some negative. This depended on the approach and the view of The Employment Equality Act and Affirmative Action.
−
Most proponents of AA believe that eradicating affirmative action would further deepen economic disparity between whites and underrepresented minorities. A common argument made for Affirmative Action is the alleged existence of an "Old Boy's Network". Such a network, it is argued, exists where people with power in organizations are able to and readily elect, promote, and support one another as well as others who are close to them within the organization (for example, the CEO of a company ensures that his best friend's son gets a position in the mail room of his company). Such a network, to the extent that it does exist, represents not a true 'meritocracy', but an oligarchy which creates barriers to entry into it for those who are not connected to the "Old Boy's Network". Nobody from outside the "Old Boy's Network" could be promoted 'from within' a company unless the job was also posted publically and everyone was given a 'fair chance' via some convoluted and lengthy questionnaire and interview process... sort of like how the federal government jobs work for the department of interior or department of agriculture.. each applicant is given a numerical score based on a lengthy set of forms and questionnaires they fill out. Those who make this argument point to the fact that the government gives preferential treatment to veterans and that many organizations give preferential treatment to employees who have worked in the organization in the past. Furthermore, there is 'geographical affirmative action', in which people are more likely to be hired if their application has a local address written on it, rather than on 'merit'.
 
−
Those who disagree with this argument point out that, with the exception of the government's preferential treatment of veterans, none of these are cases of affirmative action. Affirmative action involves legal regulation of private enterprises regarding hiring practices. There is no legal regulation for or against 'geographic affirmative action', for example. This argument further runs into the problem of resting on an implicit assumption that people are either connected to the "Old Boy's Network" or a racial minority. Where would one place the black CEO or the poor white coal miner living in West Virginia in that framework? Rather than confronting preferential treatment in a heads on kind of way, affirmative action simply creates more groups who receive preferential treatment. By legalizing and requiring preferential treatment, it promotes preferential treatment and remains mute on the vast number of people who do not fall into either of those categories (i.e., those people who are not members of the Old Boy's Network or minorities) and are discriminated against, in part, as a result of affirmative action law.
  
−
In other words, opponents of affirmative action in employment and education claim that these programs encourage socioeconomic discrimination in favor of middle-class members of minority groups over better qualified but working-class members from the majority group, since such programs do not consider socioeconomic class. In essence, middle-class minorities with greater opportunities and resources at their disposal are favored over members of the working poor who happen not to be minorities (usually, poor whites). These critics believe this is contrary to claims of "social justice" made by supporters and makes AA policy in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
   
  +
'''Positive:'''
−
Their argument is a fundamental objection to the use of [[racial quotas]] and [[gender quotas]] in affirmative action, because such quotas are unable to address social injustice at the fine level of detail which is required. However, proponents of AA reply that quotas are only legal in the US when a judge issues an order for a specific institution to make restitution for past discrimination. There is intense dispute over whether the de jure illegality of quotas prevents de facto quotas in an environment where there is so much pressure to protect against the appearance of discrimination against protected groups. Much time has been spent attempting to show that these "goals" are not [[quotas]].
  
  +
Pre Democracy, the Apartheid discriminated against non-white races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past discriminations. Affirmative Action also focused on combating structural racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all levels of society and sectors.<ref name=culture>Goga, F. (n.d.). A critique of affirmative action: The concept. Retrieved from http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za/index.php</ref> Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.<ref name=prob/>
   
  +
'''Negative:'''
−
===Criticism by Thomas Sowell===
  
  +
Though Affirmative Action had its positives, negatives arose. A quota system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a work force. This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the work force, ultimately affecting the free market.<ref name=dem/><ref name=culture/> Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap between the lower and middle class, which lead to class struggles and a greater segregation.<ref name=aff/><ref name=culture/> Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite classes, as well as race entitlement. Many believe that affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. With all these negatives, numerous people started to immigrate, of which many were skilled workers, decreasing the skill labor and work force of the country.<ref name=prob/> Many of the negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drive skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to invest in South Africa.<ref name=culture/>
−
The following are problems with affirmative action based on a review<sup>[http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/sowell4.html]</sup> of ''[[Affirmative Action Around the World|Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study]]'' (ISBN 0-30010-199-6, 2004) by economist Dr. [[Thomas Sowell]], himself [[African-American]]:
  
−
*They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiary of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies;
  
−
*They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), oftentimes to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites);
  
−
*They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best &mdash; the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile &mdash; thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and
  
−
*They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who &mdash; without preferences &mdash; consistently outperform them.
  
   
  +
With these negative and positive outcomes of Affirmative Action it is evident that the concept of affirmative action is a continuous and learning idea.<ref name=culture/>
−
Sowell also argued:[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030108.shtml]
  
   
  +
==Alternative views==
−
:What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action &mdash; and has barely changed since then.
  
  +
A 2009 [[Quinnipiac University Polling Institute]] survey found American voters opposed to the application of affirmative action to gay people, 65 over 27 percent. African-Americans were found to be in favor by 54 over 38 percent.<ref name=qui>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307 U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case]. [[Quinnipiac University]]. Published 3 June 2009.</ref>
   
  +
==Debate==
−
:What about the notion that blacks would not be able to get into colleges and universities without affirmative action? After group preferences and quotas were banned in California's state universities, the number of black students in the University of California system has risen.
  
  +
{{Globalize/US|section|date=May 2010}}
   
  +
===Polls===
−
:"Minority students are systematically mismatched with institutions" due to racial preferences, where they underperform relative to the student body. Had they gone to an institution without the help of affirmative action, to a less selective school, they would have received better grades and graduated at higher rates.
  
  +
According to a poll taken by ''[[USA Today]]'' in 2005, majority of Americans support affirmative action for women, while views on [[minority group]]s were more split.<ref name="usatoday.com">{{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0623.htm | work=USA Today | date=20 May 2005}}</ref> Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do.<ref name="usatoday.com"/> However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.<ref name="usatoday.com"/> More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 finds that 55% of Americans feel that affirmative action in general should be discontinued, though 55% support it for people with disabilities.<ref>{{cite web|author=Quinnipiac University – Office of Public Affairs |url=http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307 |title=National (US) Poll * June 3, 2009 * U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With – Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut |publisher=Quinnipiac.edu |date=3 June 2009 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref> A [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] poll from 2005 showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49% opposing), with support and opposition among Hispanics falling between those of blacks and whites. Support among blacks, unlike among whites, had almost no correlation with political affiliation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Race, Ideology, and Support for Affirmative Action|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/18091/race-ideology-support-affirmative-action.aspx|publisher=[[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]]|date=August 23, 2005|last=Jones|first=Jeffrey M.|accessdate=March 11, 2013}}</ref>
   
  +
A Leger poll taken in 2010 finds 59% of Canadians oppose considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.<ref>{{cite web|author=[[David Akin]], QMI Agency Parliamentary Bureau Chief |url=http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/12/14998311.html |title=Canadians against job hiring quotas &#124; Canada &#124; News |work=Toronto Sun |date=12 August 2010 |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
−
:"When the top-level schools recruit black students who would normally be qualified to succeed at the level next to the top, then the second tier of institutions faces the prospect of either being conspicuously lacking in minority students or (2) dipping down to the next level below to bring in enough minority students for a statistically respectable "representation." Usually they end up mismatching students. Once begun at the top, this process continues on down the line."[http://www.leaderu.com/alumni/sowell-choosing/chpter07.html#black]
  
   
−
===Libertarian view===
 +
===Support===
  +
The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.<ref>Christophe Jaffrelot , India's Silent Revolution : The rise of lower castes in northern India, pg. 321 2003</ref>
−
Some [[free market]] [[libertarian]]s argue that employment discrimination is only made possible by pervasive market failures. Under a regime of highly competitive [[labor market|labor]] and [[Good (economics and accounting)|goods]] [[market]]s, companies would not be able to afford to hire on any basis other than merit. According to Libertarians, this would render affirmative action unnecessary.
  
  +
Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and slave laws.
   
−
===Centrist view===
 +
===Opposition===
  +
Opponents of affirmative action such as [[George Sher]] believe that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive.<ref name="Sher, George 1983, p.40">Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays In Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p.40.</ref> Opponents,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acri.org/ |title=American Civil Rights Institute |publisher=Acri.org |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref> who sometimes say that affirmative action is "[[reverse discrimination]]", further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within [[minority group]]s at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).<ref>''Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination'' / Patrick Garry (2006) ISBN 1-58182-569-2</ref> They claim that cases such as [[Fisher v. University of Texas]] are few of the many examples that show how reverse discrimination can take place. In 2008, Abigail Fisher, who is a native to Texas, sued the [[University of Texas at Austin]], claiming that she was denied admission to the university because she was "white". The students that are of top 10% in the applicants of the University of Texas are admitted and there are students that compete to barely make it in on the threshold, such as Abigail Fisher. In such cases, race becomes an important factor in deciding who gets admitted to the university, and Fisher argued that discriminating and accepting students according to their race is a violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], which ensures equal protection of the law and the citizen's privilege as a citizen of United States. The constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions is now before the Supreme Court in the 2013 landmark case [[Fisher v. University of Texas]]. <ref>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-other-big-supreme-court-case.html</ref>
−
Certain people have a different point of view about specifically first world affirmative action which, for lack of a better word, will be referred to as "centrist" here. They claim that affirmative action makes sense, but only to the point where it helps the disadvantaged members of minorities, as opposed to the middle and upper class. They believe that affirmative action, as it is now, is not fulfilling its original purpose (to bring minorities out of poverty) as the vast majority of minorities, in the first world at least, are already middle-class. There have been cases of middle-class minorities receiving better jobs or college acceptance rates than whites of equal or lower income or social standing. According to this point of view, affirmative action should be eliminated and joined with the normal welfare system that helps both whites and blacks that are lower-class. They believe that affirmative action should only be used to bring the lower class, not a specific racial group, out of poverty.
  
  +
  +
American economist, social and political commentator, Dr. [[Thomas Sowell]] identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, ''[[Affirmative Action Around the World|Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study]]''.<ref>ISBN 0-300-10199-6, 2004</ref> Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.
  +
  +
==Mismatching==
  +
'''Mismatching''' is the term given to the negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for him or her. For example, according to the theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching theory, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student's chance of dropping out. Thus, according to the theory, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sander26sep26,0,3998908.story?coll=la-opinion-center Does affirmative action hurt minorities?], ''Los Angeles Times'', 26 September 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010803.asp Quotas on trial], by Thomas Sowell, 8 January 2003</ref>
  +
  +
Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the [[University of San Diego]] and a member of the [[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]], in an 24 August 2007 article published in the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''. The article reported on a 2004 study that was conducted by [[UCLA]] law professor Richard Sander and published in the ''[[Stanford Law Review]]''. The study concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black attorneys than there would have been if there had been no affirmative action. The study was titled, "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools."<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118792252575507571.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries Affirmative Action Backfires], by Gail Heriot, ''Wall Street Journal'', 24 August 2007</ref> The article also states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.<ref name=Sander>{{cite journal|last=Sander|first=Richard|title=A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS|journal=Stanford Law Review|year=2004|pages=367–483|url=http://www2.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf|accessdate=13 July 2011}}</ref>
  +
  +
Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%.<ref>{{cite web|last=Fisman |first=Ray |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2005/04/sanding_down_sander.html |title=Slate.com |publisher=Slate.com |accessdate=11 April 2012}}</ref>
   
 
==See also==
  
==See also==
  +
{{col-begin}}
  +
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Achievement gap]]
 
* [[Age discrimination]]
  
* [[Age discrimination]]
  +
* [[Affirmative action bake sale]]
  +
* [[Angry white male]]
 
* [[Civil rights]]
  
* [[Civil rights]]
−
* [[Disability discrimination]]
 +
* [[Diversity in the workplace]]
  +
* [[Diversity (business)]]
  +
* [[Economic discrimination]]
 
* [[Employment discrimination]]
  
* [[Employment discrimination]]
  +
* [[Ethnic Penalty]]
  +
* [[Harrison Bergeron]]
  +
* [[Human resource management]]
  +
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Jewish quota]]
  +
* [[Minority groups]]
  +
* [[Minority rights]]
  +
* [[Multiculturalism]]
  +
* [[Legacy preferences]]
  +
* [[Numerus clausus]]
  +
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Positive liberty]]
  +
* [[Principle-policy puzzle]]
 
* [[Race and ethnic discrimination]]
  
* [[Race and ethnic discrimination]]
  +
* [[Racism in the United States]]
−
* [[Personnel selection]]
  
−
* [[Personnel management]]
  
−
* [[Personnel recruitment]]
  
 
* [[Sex discrimination]]
  
* [[Sex discrimination]]
 
* [[Social discrimination]]
  
* [[Social discrimination]]
−
* [[Social equaility]]
 +
* [[Social equality]]
  +
* [[Teaching for social justice]]
  +
* [[Women's rights]]
  +
{{col-end}}
   
−
===Organizations===
 +
==Notes==
  +
{{Reflist|30em}}
−
* [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]]
  
−
* [[Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity]]
  
−
* [[Institute for Justice]]
  
−
* [[U.S. Commission on Civil Rights]]
  
   
−
===Miscellaneous===
 +
==References==
  +
* [[Terry H. Anderson|Anderson, Terry H.]] ''The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action'' Oxford University Press 2004 ISBN ISBN 0-19-515764-8
−
* [[Model minority]] - A minority group that’s highly successful despite a history of discrimination (e.g. Asian-Americans or Jewish-Americans)
  
  +
* Bidmead, Andrew 'The Last of England' Legend Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-907461-33-0
−
* [[Affirmative action bake sale]] – A critical bake sale organized on college campuses demonstrating "affirmative action pricing structures".
  
  +
*''[http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=229720 The Next Twenty-five Years: Affirmative Action in Higher Education in the United States and South Africa]'' David L. Featherman, Martin Hall, and Marvin Krislov, editors. Forewords by: Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan and Njabulo Ndebele, Former Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Cape Town. [[University of Michigan Press]], Ann Arbor, 2009.
−
* [[Jewish quota]] (historically restricting number of Jews)
  
  +
* Golland, David Hamilton, "Constructing Affirmative Action: Federal Contract Compliance and the Building Construction Trades, 1956–1973" (PhD dissertation City University of New York, 2008). Order No. DA3325474.
−
* [[Race and intelligence]]
  
  +
* Susanne Vieth-Entus, "Sozialquote: Berliner Gymnasien sollen mehr Schüler aus armen Familien aufnehmen" (29 December 2008) Der Tagesspiegel
−
* [[Malaysian New Economic Policy]]
  
  +
*[[Marc Bossuyt]], '[http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/0aaa7775daf0bcebc1256c0c0031c5bd?Opendocument United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights] (17 June 2002) Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council
−
* [[Legacy preferences]]
  
  +
* [[Norma M. Riccucci]], ''Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces'' Westview Press 2002 ISBN 0-8133-9838-X
−
* [[Reservation in India]]
  
   
−
==References ==
 +
== Further reading ==
  +
*Oliver B. Pollak, "Antisemitism, the Harvard Plan, and the Roots of Reverse Discrimination," ''Jewish Social Studies'' 41, no. 2 (1983): 113–22.
−
# Shaheen Lakhan - [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/3/6 Diversification of U.S. Medical Schools via Affirmative Action Implementation]. ''BMC Medical Education''. 3:6. 2003.
  
  +
* Vinay Harpalani, ''Diversity Within Racial Groups and the Constitutionality of Race-Conscious Admissions'', 15 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 163 (2012). Cited in Society of American Law Teachers (S.A.L.T.) amicus brief to U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (argued October 10, 2012). Available http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2087731
−
# [[Department of Labor|U.S. Department of Labor]] - [http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/fs11246.htm U.S. Executive Order 11246] EEO and Affirmative Action Guidelines for Federal Contractors Regarding Race, Color, Gender, Religion, and National Origin
  
  +
* Vinay Harpalani, Fisher’s Fishing Expedition, 15 U. PA. J. CONST. L. HEIGHT. SCRUTINY (forthcoming 2013). Invited commentary on oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (argued October 10, 2012). Available http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2185453
−
# [[Department of Labor|U.S. Department of Labor]] - [http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/eo11246.htm Executive Order 11246], As Amended
  
−
# [http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=affirmative+action&search_crit=subject&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Affirmative Action]
  
−
#[http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]
  
−
# Richard H. Sander, ''A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools'', 57 ''Stanford Law Review'' 367 (2004), ''available at'' [http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~sander/Systemic/SA.htm Richard Sander's Homepage].
  
−
# [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry]
  
−
# [[Cato Institute]] [http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa540.pdf Policy Analysis 540]
  
   
 
==External links==
  
==External links==
  +
*
−
* www.sterlingharwood.com [http://www.sterlingharwood.com] has about 20 quotes on affirmative action and discusses the pros and cons of affirmative action
  
  +
*{{sep|affirmative-action}}
−
* A law lecture in mp3 format ([http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/article.php?story=conlawi36 part 1] and [http://www.lifeofalawstudent.com/article.php?story=conlawi37 part 2]) on affirmative action and U.S. constitutional law
  
  +
*{{NYTtopic|subjects/a/affirmative_action}}
−
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ Affirmative Action] at the [http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
  
  +
*{{WSJtopic|subject/A/Affirmative-Action/1719}}
  +
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm Affirmative Action] collected news and commentary at ''[[The Washington Post]]''
  +
* [http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/434/index.html Does the success of Barack Obama mean we no longer need affirmative action?] NOW on PBS investigates
  +
*[http://cle.ens-lsh.fr/29902590/0/fiche___pagelibre/&RH=CDL_ANG020000 An interview with Professor Randall Kennedy about the presidency of Barack Obama and affirmative action] Clifford Armion for La Clé des langues.
  +
* [http://www.minorityrights.org/admin/Download/pdf/MRG_RomaBriefing2006.pdf Substantive Equality, Positive Action and Roma Rights in the European Union], Report by Minority Rights Group International
   
  +
{{Employment}}
−
===Websites critical of affirmative action===
  
−
*[http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/affact.html Affirmative Action...playing favorites] - from Mark Valenti's Liberty Page
  
−
*[http://www.capc.co.uk Campaign Against Political Correctness] - against affirmative action and positive action.
  
   
  +
{{DEFAULTSORT:Affirmative Action}}
  +
{{enWP|Affirmitive action}}
  +
[[Category:Education issues]]
  +
[[Category:History of education]]
  +
[[Category:Education policy]]
 
[[Category:Discrimination]]
  
[[Category:Discrimination]]
−
[[Category:Issues in the culture wars]]
  
−
[[Category:Politics and race]]
  
−
[[Category:Racism]]
  
−
[[Category:Social inequality]]
  
−
[[Category:Social justice]]
  
 
[[Category:Personnel]]
  
[[Category:Personnel]]
−
[[Category:Personnel selection]]
  
−
[[Category:Personnel management]]
  
 
[[Category:Personnel recruitment]]
  
[[Category:Personnel recruitment]]
  +
[[CAtegory:Personnel selection]]
−  
  +
[[Category:Politics and race]]
−  
  +
[[Category:Social inequality]]
−
<!--
  
  +
[[Category:Prejudice and discrimination]]
−
[[af:Regstellende aksie]]
  
  +
[[Category:Race-related legal issues]]
−
[[de:Quotenregelung]]
  
  +
[[Category:Affirmative action| ]]
−
[[es:Acción afirmativa]]
  
−
[[fr:Discrimination positive]]
  
−
[[he:העדפה מתקנת]]
  
−
[[hu:Pozitív diszkrimináció]]
  
−
[[nl:Rechtstellende actie]]
  
−
[[ja:積極的差別是正措置]]
  
−
[[pt:Ação afirmativa]]
  
−
[[fi:Positiivinen syrjintä]]
  
−
[[sv:Kvotering]]
  
−
[[ta:சீர்திருத்த செயலாக்கம்]]
  
−
-->
  
−
{{EnWP| Affirmative action}}
  

Revision as of 00:13, 27 March 2015

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Social psychology: Altruism · Attribution · Attitudes · Conformity · Discrimination · Groups · Interpersonal relations · Obedience · Prejudice · Norms · Perception · Index · Outline

Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom, and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group" in areas of employment, education, and business".[2]

Origins

The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in Executive Order 10925 and was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961; it was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to hire without regard to race, religion and national origin. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[3]

Purpose

Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined groups within a society. It is often instituted in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[4] and to address existing discrimination.[5] The implementation of affirmative action, especially in the United States, is considered by its proponents to be justified by disparate impact.

Quotas

Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste based quotas are used in Reservation in India. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.[6]

In 2012, the European Union Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by the year 2020.[7] In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The Justice Chancellor said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.[8]

United Nations position

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."[9]

The United Nations Human Rights Committee states that "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."[9]

National approaches

See also: Reserved political positions

In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action."

The Americas

Brazil

Further information: Vestibular

Some Brazilian Universities (State and Federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and native Brazilians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are also quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for people with disabilities in the civil public services.[10] The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of the University of Brasília of "Nazism", appealed to the Supreme Federal Court the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves for minorities.[11] The Supreme Court unanimously approved their constitutionality on 26 April 2012.[12]

Canada

Further information: Employment equity (Canada)

The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.[13]

United States

Main article: Affirmative action in the United States

Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[14]

On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[15]

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[16] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor—a small plus factor—when admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems, such as the one previously used by the University of Michigan Law School, are unconstitutional.[17] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[18]

Asia

Israel

A class-based affirmative action policy was incorporated into the admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel during the early to mid-2000s. In evaluating the eligibility of applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed.This policy made the four institutions, especially the echelons at the most selective departments, more diverse than they otherwise would have been. The rise in geographic, economic and demographic diversity of a student population suggests that the plan’s focus on structural determinants of disadvantage yields broad diversity dividends.[19]

India

Main article: Reservation in India

Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities defined primarily by their caste.

Sri Lanka

In 1971 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had poor educational facilities due to 200 years purposeful discrimination by British colonialists. The British had practised communal favoritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka, as part of a policy of divide and conquer.

Japan

Admission to universities as well as all government positions (including teachers) are determined by the entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. It is illegal to include sex, ethnicity or other social background (but not nationality) in criteria; however, there are informal policies to provide employment and long term welfare (which is usually not available to general public) to Burakumin at municipality level.

People's Republic of China

"Preferential policies" required some of the top positions in governments be distributed to ethnic minorities and women. Also, many universities are required by government to give preferred admissions to ethnic minorities.[20][21]

South Korea

Admission to universities is also determined by the strict entrance exam, which is extremely competitive at the top level. But most of all Korean universities at the top level are adapting some affirmative actions in cases of Chinese ethnic minority, North Korean refugees, etc. in their recruiting new students. Besides, national universities have been pressed by the Korean government, so now they are trying to meet the governmental goal which is to recruit a proportion of female professors.

Malaysia

Main article: Ketuanan Melayu

The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP serves as a form of affirmative action. Malaysia provides affirmative action to the majority because in general, the Malays have lower income than the Chinese who have traditionally been involved in businesses and industries.[22] Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 30% of the population are Malaysians of Chinese descent, while Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 8% of the population. Government policy provides preferential placement for ethnic Malays, and 95% of all new intakes for the army, hospital nurses, police, and other government institutions are Malays. As of 2004, only 7% of all government servants are ethnic Chinese, a drop from 30% in 1960. All eight of the directors of the national petroleum company, Petronas, are Malays, and only 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese. Additionally, 95% of all government contracts are awarded to ethnic Malays.[23]

(See also Bumiputra) The mean income for Malays, Chinese and Indians in 1957/58 were 134, 288 and 228 respectively. In 1967/68 it was 154, 329 and 245, and in 1970 it was 170, 390 and 300. Mean income disparity ratio for Chinese/Malays rose from 2.1 in 1957/58 to 2.3 in 1970, whereas for Indians/Malays the disparity ratio also rose from 1.7 to 1.8 in the same period.[24] The Malays viewed Independence as restoring their proper place in their own country's socioeconomic order while the non-Malays were opposing government efforts to advance Malay political primacy and economic welfare.

Oceania

New Zealand

Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded improved access to university courses, or have scholarships earmarked specifically for them.[25] Affirmative action is provided for under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993[26] and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[27]

Europe

Finland

In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for persons who reach a certain standard of skills in the Swedish language; for students admitted in these quotas, the education is partially arranged in Swedish.[28][29] The purpose of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of professionals with skills in Swedish are educated for nation-wide needs.[28] The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.

France

No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 French Constitution.<http://thisnation.com/library/france.html> Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Priority Education Zones", are granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po).[citation needed]

The French Ministry of Defence tried in 1990 to give more easily higher ranks and driving licenses to young French soldiers with North-African ancestry. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant[30] in the Ministry of Defence newspaper (Armées d'aujourd'hui), this driving license and rank project was cancelled. After the Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arabian-French students was made but Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French constitution. However, highly ranked French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain amount of students from impoverished families.[31]
Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All male director nominations will be invalid as long as the condition is not met, and financial penalties may apply for other directors.[32]

Germany

File:Dahrendorf.jpg

Ralf Dahrendorf was in favour of affirmative action

Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover, the handicapped should be preferred to healthy people. This is typical for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase diversity in this line of work". In recent years, there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. Germany's Left Party brought up the discussion about affirmative action in Germany's school system. According to Stefan Zillich, quotas should be "a possibility" to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a Gymnasium (University-preparatory school).[33] Headmasters of Gymnasien have objected, saying that this type of policy would "be a disservice" to poor children.[34]

In 2009, the Berlin Senate decided that Berlin's Gymnasium should no longer be allowed to handpick all of their students. It was ruled that while Gymnasien should be able to pick 70% to 65% of their students, the other places at the Gymnasien are to be allocated by lottery. Every child will be able to enter the lottery, no matter how he or she performed in primary school. It is hoped that this policy will increase the number of working class students attending a Gymnasium.[35]

The Left proposed that Berlin Gymnasien should no longer be allowed to expel students who perform poorly so that the students who won a Gymnasium place in the lottery have a fair chance of graduating from that school.[35] It is not clear yet if Berlin's senate will decide in favour of The Lefts proposal. There is also a discussion going on if affirmative action should be employed to help the children and grandchildren of the so-called Gastarbeiter gain better access to German universities. One prominent proponent of this was Lord Ralf Dahrendorf.[36] It is argued that the Gastarbeiter willingly came to Germany to help build the industry and this should be honored.

Norway

In all public limited companies (PCL) boards, either gender should be represented by 40%.[37] This affects roughly 400 companies of over 300.000 in total.[38]

Macedonia

Minorities, most notably Albanians, are allocated quotas for access to state universities, as well as in civil public services.[citation needed]

Romania

Roma people are allocated quotas for access to public schools and state universities.[39] There is evidence that some ethnic Romanians exploit the system so they can be themselves admitted to universities, which has drawn criticism from Roma representatives.[40]

Slovakia

The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution.[41]

Sweden

Special treatments of certain groups are commonplace in Sweden. Leveraging of the opportunities of these groups is encouraged by the state. One example is the police, who give women and people from other cultural and ethnic backgrounds concessions when it comes to testing for entrance to the police academy.[citation needed]

United Kingdom

The Good Friday Agreement required the Police Service of Northern Ireland to recruit equal numbers of Catholics and Protestants in order to reduce any possible bias towards Protestants.[citation needed] The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allowed the use of all-women shortlists to select more women as election candidates. [citation needed]

The Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.[42]

In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public services.[25][43][44]

Africa

South Africa

Template:Refimprove section

See also: Black Economic Empowerment
Apartheid

The Apartheid government, as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned companies and partly as a result of this, the majority of employers in South Africa were white people. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Skilled jobs were also reserved for white people, and blacks were largely used as unskilled labour, enforced by legislation including the Mines and Works Act, the Job Reservations Act, the Native Building Workers Act, the Apprenticeship Act and the Bantu Education Act,[45] creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour.[46] For example, in early 20th century South Africa mine owners preferred hiring black workers because they were cheaper.[47] Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the blacks' employment opportunities.[47]

Since the 1960s the Apartheid laws had been weakened. Consequently, from 1975 to 1990 the real wages of black manufacturing workers rose by 50%, that of whites by 1%.[48]

The economic and politically structured society during the apartheid ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation and income within labour markets, which provided advantages to certain groups and characteristics of people. This in due course was the motivation to introduce affirmative action in South Africa, following the end of Apartheid.[49]

Post-apartheid Employment Equity

Following the transition to democracy in 1994, the African National Congress-led government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct previous imbalances (a policy known as Employment Equity). As such, all employers were compelled by law to employ previously disenfranchised groups (blacks, Indians, and Coloureds). A related, but distinct concept is Black Economic Empowerment.[50]

The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by advancing people from designated groups. The designated groups who are to be advanced include all people of colour, women (including white women) and people with disabilities (including whites). Employment Equity legislation requires companies employing more than 50 people to design and implement plans to improve the representativity of workforce demographics, and report them to the Department of Labour[51]

Employment Equity also forms part of a company's Black Economic Empowerment scorecard: in a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.

The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[52][53][54][55][56]

These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[48] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.[48] Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that in principle blacks may be favored, but in practice this should not lead to unfair discrimination against the others.[48] Yet it is impossible to favor somebody without discriminating against others.[48]

Affirmative Action Purpose

As mentioned previously affirmative action was introduced through the Employment Equality Act, 55 in 1998, 4 years after the end of Apartheid. This act was passed to promote the constitutional right of equality and exercise true democracy. This idea was to eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination, to achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of our people, to promote economic development and efficiency in the workforce and to give effects to the obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour Organisation.[49][57]

Many embraced the Act; however some concluded that the act contradicted itself. The act eliminates unfair discrimination in certain sectors of the national labour market by imposing similar constraints on another.[49]

With the introduction of Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) rose additionally in South Africa. The BEE was not a moral initiative to redress the wrongs of the past but to promote growth and strategies that aim to realize a countries full potential. The idea was targeting the weakest link in economics, which was inequality and which would help develop the economy. This is evident in the statement by the Department of Trade and Industry, “As such, this strategy stresses a BEE process that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development, and not merely the redistribution of existing wealth”.[58][59] Similarities between the BEE and affirmative action are apparent; however there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality rather than taking wealth away from the skilled white labourers.[58]

The main goal of Affirmative Action is for a country to reach its full potential. This occurrence would result in a completely diverse workforce in economic and social sectors. Thus broadening the economic base and therefore stimulating economic growth.[60]

Outcomes

Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some positive and some negative. This depended on the approach and the view of The Employment Equality Act and Affirmative Action.

Positive: Pre Democracy, the Apartheid discriminated against non-white races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past discriminations. Affirmative Action also focused on combating structural racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all levels of society and sectors.[61] Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.[49]

Negative: Though Affirmative Action had its positives, negatives arose. A quota system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a work force. This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the work force, ultimately affecting the free market.[60][61] Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap between the lower and middle class, which lead to class struggles and a greater segregation.[57][61] Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite classes, as well as race entitlement. Many believe that affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. With all these negatives, numerous people started to immigrate, of which many were skilled workers, decreasing the skill labor and work force of the country.[49] Many of the negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drive skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to invest in South Africa.[61]

With these negative and positive outcomes of Affirmative Action it is evident that the concept of affirmative action is a continuous and learning idea.[61]

Alternative views

A 2009 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey found American voters opposed to the application of affirmative action to gay people, 65 over 27 percent. African-Americans were found to be in favor by 54 over 38 percent.[62]

Debate

  1. REDIRECT Template:Globalize/USA


Polls

According to a poll taken by USA Today in 2005, majority of Americans support affirmative action for women, while views on minority groups were more split.[63] Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do.[63] However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.[63] More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 finds that 55% of Americans feel that affirmative action in general should be discontinued, though 55% support it for people with disabilities.[64] A Gallup poll from 2005 showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49% opposing), with support and opposition among Hispanics falling between those of blacks and whites. Support among blacks, unlike among whites, had almost no correlation with political affiliation.[65]

A Leger poll taken in 2010 finds 59% of Canadians oppose considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.[66]

Support

The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[67] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and slave laws.

Opposition

Opponents of affirmative action such as George Sher believe that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive.[68] Opponents,[69] who sometimes say that affirmative action is "reverse discrimination", further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class whites).[70] They claim that cases such as Fisher v. University of Texas are few of the many examples that show how reverse discrimination can take place. In 2008, Abigail Fisher, who is a native to Texas, sued the University of Texas at Austin, claiming that she was denied admission to the university because she was "white". The students that are of top 10% in the applicants of the University of Texas are admitted and there are students that compete to barely make it in on the threshold, such as Abigail Fisher. In such cases, race becomes an important factor in deciding who gets admitted to the university, and Fisher argued that discriminating and accepting students according to their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal protection of the law and the citizen's privilege as a citizen of United States. The constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions is now before the Supreme Court in the 2013 landmark case Fisher v. University of Texas. [71]

American economist, social and political commentator, Dr. Thomas Sowell identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[72] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.

Mismatching

Mismatching is the term given to the negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for him or her. For example, according to the theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching theory, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student's chance of dropping out. Thus, according to the theory, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.[73][74]

Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in an 24 August 2007 article published in the Wall Street Journal. The article reported on a 2004 study that was conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and published in the Stanford Law Review. The study concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black attorneys than there would have been if there had been no affirmative action. The study was titled, "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools."[75] The article also states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.[76]

Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%.[77]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Executive Order 11246—Equal employment opportunity. The Federal Register. URL accessed on 5/2/2010.
  2. ↑ Affirmative Action. Stanford University. URL accessed on 4/6/2012.
  3. ↑ Affirmative Action: History and Rationale. Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President.
  4. ↑ Sowell, Thomas (2004). Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10199-6
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Affirmative Action. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  6. ↑ Affirmative Action. Labor-employment-law.lawyers.com. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  7. ↑ "The EU's Boardroom Quota Battle Is Over, But Women Cannot Yet Rest". http://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2012/11/19/the-eus-boardroom-quota-battle-is-over-but-women-cannot-yet-rest/
  8. ↑ Uppsala discriminated against Swedes, The Local, 21 December 06
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10
  10. ↑ Plummer, Robert. "Black Brazil Seeks a Better Future." BBC News São Paulo, 25 September 2006. 16 November 2006
  11. ↑ Por Rodrigo Haidar e Filipe Coutinho. DEM entra com ADPF contra cotas raciais. Conjur.com.br. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  12. ↑ Débora Santos. Supremo decide pro unanimidade pela constiucionalidade das cotas. g1.globo.com. URL accessed on 3June2012.
  13. ↑ GNWT – Human Resources – Affirmative Action. Hr.gov.nt.ca. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  14. ↑ Executive Order 10925 – Establishing The President's Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. URL accessed on 5/2/2010.
  15. ↑ Federal Employment Discrimination Laws. EmployeeIssues.com. URL accessed on 18 May 2010.
  16. ↑ Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias; also see Norma M. Riccucci. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002
  17. ↑ Highlights of the 2002–2003 Supreme Court Term
  18. ↑ Steven M. Teles (2010). The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law, 235–7, Princeton University Press.
  19. ↑ ^Alon, Sigal. 2011. “The Diversity Dividends of a Need-blind and Color-blind Affirmative Action Policy” Social Science Research, 40(6):1494-1505., http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X11001037
  20. ↑ Graduate Student Admission Ordainment – Ministry of Education, PRC
  21. ↑ Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commission of Guangdong Province. Mzzjw.gd.gov.cn. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  22. ↑ Encyclopedia of the Nations, "Malaysia Poverty and Wealth". Nationsencyclopedia.com. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  23. ↑ Bumiputra Policy in MalaysiaTemplate:Archive link
  24. ↑ Perumal, M. (1989). Economic Growth and Income Inequality in Malaysia, 1957–1984. Singapore Economic Review 34 (2): 33–46.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Commission for Racial Equality. Affirmative action around the world. Catalyst. Commission for Racial Equality.
  26. ↑ http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304672.html
  27. ↑ http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225519.html
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 (2011). Hakuopas 2011. Lääketieteen ja hammaslääketieteen opiskelijavalinnat. (PDF) Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki. URL accessed on 4 June 2011.
  29. ↑ (2011). Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta. Hakuopas 2011. (PDF) Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. URL accessed on 4 June 2011.
  30. ↑ Jean-Pierre Steinhofer: "Beur ou ordinaire" in Armée d'Ajourd'hui, 1991.
  31. ↑ "Le Plan Sarkozy", ''Le Monde''. Le Monde. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  32. ↑ Vie Publique. Vie-publique.fr. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  33. ↑ Susanne Vieth-Entus (29. December 2008): "Sozialquote: Berliner Gymnasien sollen mehr Schüler aus armen Familien aufnehmen". Der Tagesspiegel
  34. ↑ Martin Klesmann (23 February 2009). "'Kinder aus Neukölln würden sich nicht integrieren lassen' – Ein Politiker und ein Schulleiter streiten über Sozialquoten an Gymnasien". Berliner Zeitung
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Heinz-Peter Meidinger: "Berliner Schullotterie". Profil 07-08/2009 (24 August. 2009)
  36. ↑ Christine Prußky: "Zuwanderer an die Unis – Soziologe Ralf Dahrendorf fordert Migrantenquote"
  37. ↑ LOV-1997-06-13-45 Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven). Lovdata.no. URL accessed on 29 July 2010.
  38. ↑ 27.000 flere bedrifter i Norge. dn.no. URL accessed on 28 August 2011.
  39. ↑ Romii - PROGRESE ÎNREGISTRATE ÎN ROMÂNIA ÎN PERIOADA 2007 - 2008. URL accessed on January 30, 2013.
  40. ↑ Admiterea in facultati pe locuri pentru rromi, un fenomen ce trebuie stopat. URL accessed on January 30, 2013.
  41. ↑ Goldirova, Renata Slovakia bans positive discrimination. Euobserver.com. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  42. ↑ Equality Act 2010. Legislation.gov.uk. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  43. ↑ GOV.UK. Types of discrimination`. Discrimination: your rights. GOV.UK. URL accessed on 7 April 2013.
  44. ↑ Personneltoday.com "Is there a case for positive discrimination?"
  45. ↑ Job Reservations Act. South End Museum. URL accessed on 31 March 2011.
  46. ↑ White Workers and the Colour Bar. Sahistory.org.za. URL accessed on 31 March 2011.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Discrimination, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, Library of Economics
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 Race, law and poverty in the new South Africa, The Economist, 30 September 1999
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 Stokes, G. (2010, 03 15). The problem with affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.fanews.co.za/article.asp?Front_Page_Features~25,Stokes_Stage~1145,The_problem_with_affirmative_action~7618
  50. ↑ [1][dead link]
  51. ↑ Employment Equity FAQ. Southafrica.info. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  52. ↑ BEE's Glass Slipper. Mg.co.za. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  53. ↑ BEE: A man made disaster. Moneyweb.co.za. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  54. ↑ 'SAB deal to enrich black elite': Fin24: Companies. Fin24. URL accessed on 29 July 2010.
  55. ↑ Business Report – Home – Motlanthe warns BEE council has failed. Busrep.co.za. URL accessed on 29 July 2010.
  56. ↑ Manyi vows to get tough over BEE – Mail & Guardian Online: The smart news source. Mg.co.za. URL accessed on 29 July 2010.
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 Bergmann, B. (1999). The continuing need for affirmative action. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39(5), 757-768. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062976999000277
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Black economic empowerment. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.southafrica.info/business/trends/empowerment/bee.htm
  59. ↑ Franchi, V. (2003). The racialization of affirmative action in organizational discourses: A case study of symbolic racism in post-apartheid south africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(2), 157-187. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147176702000913
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 Edigheji, O. (2006). Affirmative action and state capacity in a democratic South Africa. Policy: issues & actors,20(4), Retrieved from http://cps.org.za/cps pdf/pia20_4.pdf
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 Goga, F. (n.d.). A critique of affirmative action: The concept. Retrieved from http://ccms.ukzn.ac.za/index.php
  62. ↑ U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case. Quinnipiac University. Published 3 June 2009.
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 includeonly>Template error: argument title is required.
  64. ↑ Quinnipiac University – Office of Public Affairs. National (US) Poll * June 3, 2009 * U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With – Quinnipiac University – Hamden, Connecticut. Quinnipiac.edu. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  65. ↑ Jones, Jeffrey M. Race, Ideology, and Support for Affirmative Action. Gallup. URL accessed on March 11, 2013.
  66. ↑ David Akin, QMI Agency Parliamentary Bureau Chief. Canadians against job hiring quotas | Canada | News. Toronto Sun. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  67. ↑ Christophe Jaffrelot , India's Silent Revolution : The rise of lower castes in northern India, pg. 321 2003
  68. ↑ Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays In Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p.40.
  69. ↑ American Civil Rights Institute. Acri.org. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.
  70. ↑ Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination / Patrick Garry (2006) ISBN 1-58182-569-2
  71. ↑ http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-other-big-supreme-court-case.html
  72. ↑ ISBN 0-300-10199-6, 2004
  73. ↑ Does affirmative action hurt minorities?, Los Angeles Times, 26 September 2007
  74. ↑ Quotas on trial, by Thomas Sowell, 8 January 2003
  75. ↑ Affirmative Action Backfires, by Gail Heriot, Wall Street Journal, 24 August 2007
  76. ↑ Sander, Richard (2004). A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS. Stanford Law Review: 367–483.
  77. ↑ Fisman, Ray Slate.com. Slate.com. URL accessed on 11 April 2012.

References

  • Anderson, Terry H. The Pursuit of Fairness: A History of Affirmative Action Oxford University Press 2004 ISBN ISBN 0-19-515764-8
  • Bidmead, Andrew 'The Last of England' Legend Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-907461-33-0
  • The Next Twenty-five Years: Affirmative Action in Higher Education in the United States and South Africa David L. Featherman, Martin Hall, and Marvin Krislov, editors. Forewords by: Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan and Njabulo Ndebele, Former Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of Cape Town. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2009.
  • Golland, David Hamilton, "Constructing Affirmative Action: Federal Contract Compliance and the Building Construction Trades, 1956–1973" (PhD dissertation City University of New York, 2008). Order No. DA3325474.
  • Susanne Vieth-Entus, "Sozialquote: Berliner Gymnasien sollen mehr Schüler aus armen Familien aufnehmen" (29 December 2008) Der Tagesspiegel
  • Marc Bossuyt, 'United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (17 June 2002) Commission on Human Rights, Economic and Social Council
  • Norma M. Riccucci, Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces Westview Press 2002 ISBN 0-8133-9838-X

Further reading

  • Oliver B. Pollak, "Antisemitism, the Harvard Plan, and the Roots of Reverse Discrimination," Jewish Social Studies 41, no. 2 (1983): 113–22.
  • Vinay Harpalani, Diversity Within Racial Groups and the Constitutionality of Race-Conscious Admissions, 15 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 163 (2012). Cited in Society of American Law Teachers (S.A.L.T.) amicus brief to U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (argued October 10, 2012). Available http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2087731
  • Vinay Harpalani, Fisher’s Fishing Expedition, 15 U. PA. J. CONST. L. HEIGHT. SCRUTINY (forthcoming 2013). Invited commentary on oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345 (argued October 10, 2012). Available http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2185453

External links


v·d·e
Employment
See also: template Corporate titles • template Workplace
Classifications

Casual / Contingent • Full-time • Part-time • Self-employed / Independent contractor • Temporary • Wage labour

Hiring

Application • Background check • Contract • Cover letter • Drug testing • Employment counsellor • Interview • Job fraud • Job hunting • Probation • Recruiter (Employment agency • Executive search) • Overqualification • References • Résumé / Curriculum Vitæ (CV) • Underemployment • Work-at-home scheme

Roles

Co-op • Employee • Employer • Internship • Job • Numerary • Permanent • Permatemp • Supernumerary • Supervisor • Volunteer

Worker class

Blue-collar worker • Gold-collar worker • Green-collar worker • Grey-collar worker • Pink-collar worker • White-collar worker

Career and training

Apprenticeship • Avocation • Coaching • Career assessment • Career counseling • Career development • Creative class • Education (Continuing education • Continuing professional development • E-learning • Employability • Further education • Graduate school • Induction training • Initial Professional Development • Knowledge worker • Licensure • Lifelong learning • Practice-based professional learning • Professional association • Professional certification • Professional development • Vocational education • Reflective practice • Vocational retraining • Vocational school • Vocational university) • Mentorship • Profession • Tradesman • Vocation

Attendance

Break • Career break • Furlough • Gap year • Leave of absence • Long service leave • No call, no show • Sabbatical • Sick leave

Schedules

35-hour workweek • Eight-hour day • Flextime • Four-day week • Overtime • Retroactive overtime • Shift work • Telecommuting • Working time • Workweek

Wages

Living wage • Maximum wage • Average wage (World • Europe) • Minimum wage (Canada • Hong Kong • Europe • USA) • Overtime rate • Paid time off • Performance-related pay • Salary • Salary cap • Working poor

Benefits

Annual leave • Disability insurance • Health insurance • Life insurance • Parental leave • Sick leave • Take-home vehicle

Safety and health

Epilepsy and employment • Ergonomics • Industrial noise • Occupational disease • Occupational exposure limit • Occupational health psychology • Occupational injury • Sick building syndrome • Work accident (Occupational fatality) • Workers' compensation • Work–life balance • Workplace stress • Workplace wellness

Equality

Affirmative action • Equal pay for women

Infractions

Discrimination • Employee handbook • Evaluation • Labour law • Sexual harassment • Sleeping while on duty • Workplace bullying • Workplace incivility • Workplace surveillance

Willingness

Anti-work • Extreme careerism • Civil conscription • Conscription • Dead-end job • Full employment • Job satisfaction • McJob • Slavery (Bonded labor • Human trafficking • Labour camp • Penal labour • Peonage • Truck system • Unfree labour • Wage slavery) • Refusal of work • Work aversion • Work ethic • Workaholic

Termination

At-will employment • Constructive dismissal • Dismissal • Layoff • Letter of resignation • Pink slip • Recession-proof job • Resignation • Retirement • Severance package • Types of unemployment • Unemployment • Unemployment benefits • Unemployment rates • Wrongful dismissal


This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.