Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Affirmative action

Affirmative action consists of policies and practices that grant preferential treatment to individuals from specified demographic groups, such as racial minorities and women, in domains including admissions, employment hiring and promotions, and government contracts, with the aim of rectifying historical and enhancing representation of underrepresented populations. Emerging amid the civil rights era, these measures originated with President John F. Kennedy's in 1961, which mandated federal contractors to undertake "affirmative action" to prevent based on , creed, color, or , and were broadened by President Lyndon B. Johnson's in 1965 to actively ensure equal employment opportunities. While proponents credit affirmative action with expanding access and diversity—evidenced by increased enrollment of minority students in elite universities and higher workforce participation rates among targeted groups—empirical analyses have highlighted drawbacks, including the "mismatch" phenomenon, where admitted or hired individuals with credentials below institutional averages experience elevated dropout rates, lower graduation success, and diminished long-term outcomes compared to attendance at more suitable institutions. Critics further argue that such preferences constitute reverse discrimination against non-beneficiaries, particularly whites and Asians, fostering resentment and undermining merit-based selection, as demonstrated in legal precedents like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which invalidated racial quotas while permitting limited diversity considerations. The policies' constitutionality has undergone repeated scrutiny, with the U.S. in ruling in , Inc. v. Harvard and related cases that race-conscious admissions at public and private universities violate the of the , marking a pivotal restriction on affirmative action's scope in while leaving its application in and contracting subject to ongoing challenges and narrower justifications.

Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Core Principles and Definitions

Affirmative action denotes policies and practices that provide preferential treatment or consideration to individuals from designated groups—typically racial minorities, women, and sometimes other categories deemed historically disadvantaged—in domains such as , admissions, and contracting, with the stated objective of remedying prior or fostering . The term first appeared in U.S. federal policy via , signed by President on March 6, 1961, which directed contractors to "take affirmative action" to ensure equal opportunities without regard to , creed, color, or national origin, emphasizing proactive measures beyond mere nondiscrimination prohibitions. This evolved under , issued by President on September 24, 1965, requiring federal contractors to develop affirmative action programs that actively recruit and advance qualified minorities, effectively shifting from passive compliance to structured interventions aimed at altering demographics. At its core, affirmative action operates on the of compensatory justice, positing that current generations bear responsibility to offset intergenerational harms from historical , such as , , and exclusionary practices, by granting advantages like tie-breaking preferences or set-aside opportunities to affected groups. A second foundational is the imperative, which asserts that heterogeneous groups enhance institutional outcomes—evidenced in claims of improved , reduced , and broader societal —necessitating race- or gender-conscious selections over strict merit-based criteria. These principles prioritize in outcomes, interpreting as requiring interventions to equalize group disparities rather than color-blind , though implementation often involves metrics like applicant pool adjustments or bonus points for protected characteristics. In legal contexts, such as under Title VII of the , affirmative action must demonstrate a manifest imbalance in tied to prior , but voluntary programs have historically extended to broader goals without such prerequisites.

Theoretical Justifications

Proponents of affirmative action invoke compensatory justice as a primary theoretical basis, positing that it rectifies ongoing disadvantages stemming from historical injustices such as , , and discriminatory practices that denied opportunities to specific racial and ethnic groups. This view frames preferential treatment as restitution for uncompensated harms, where beneficiaries are seen as proxies for victimized classes unable to receive direct due to generational distance. For instance, policies aim to offset inherited socioeconomic deficits, such as lower and gaps traceable to events like the abolition of in 1865 followed by persisting until the 1960s. A second justification centers on diversity's instrumental value, particularly in and professional settings, where heterogeneous groups purportedly foster , , and reduced through exposure to differing viewpoints. Advocates argue this enhances overall societal outcomes, as diverse teams in fields like and yield better problem-solving; for example, studies cited in debates claim interracial interactions in correlate with lower stereotyping rates among students. This rationale gained prominence in U.S. precedents, emphasizing that racial constitutes a compelling state interest without quotas, provided it remains narrowly tailored. Additional arguments draw from substantive equality theories, contending that formal color-blind perpetuates disparities absent intervention, as standardized metrics like test scores embed cultural biases favoring dominant groups. Philosopher , for one, maintained that a more equal distribution of opportunities across society improves collective welfare, even if it entails temporary preferences to dismantle entrenched inequalities. Similarly, forward-looking models assert that affirmative action promotes and legitimacy in institutions, countering perceptions of exclusion that could erode . These rationales often prioritize over individual desert, viewing equal outcomes as a derived from egalitarian principles.

Fundamental Critiques from First Principles

Affirmative action, by design, entails of individuals based on , , or , which contravenes the principle that requires evaluating people as individuals rather than as proxies for historical group grievances. This approach assumes that group membership inherently confers either victimhood or privilege, ignoring the vast intra-group variations in ability, effort, and circumstance; consequently, it imposes collective guilt or remedy where none may apply to specific actors, violating the causal logic that remedies should target verifiable harms rather than statistical averages. Philosophers such as Louis Pojman argue that strong affirmative action—preferential treatment favoring certain groups—paradoxically erodes the meritocratic foundation of fair distribution, as it subordinates individual desert to engineered outcomes, fostering resentment and inefficiency without addressing underlying causes like disparities in family structure or educational preparation. A core causal flaw lies in affirmative action's mismatch dynamic, where beneficiaries are often placed in competitive environments exceeding their prior academic preparation, leading to higher failure rates because competence develops sequentially through foundational mastery rather than abrupt elevation. Richard Sander's analysis demonstrates that law students admitted via racial preferences at elite institutions graduate and pass bar exams at rates 20-50% lower than peers with similar credentials at less selective schools, as the principle of skill-building demands alignment between aptitude and rigor to avoid demotivation and attrition. This not only harms intended beneficiaries—undermining long-term advancement—but also erodes institutional quality by prioritizing demographic targets over predictive qualifications like test scores and grades, which correlate strongly with performance across racial lines. From a broader societal perspective, affirmative action perpetuates division by incentivizing over universal standards, as evidenced by its global failures: Thomas Sowell's examination of programs in , , and reveals persistent underperformance among beneficiaries, with preferences breeding dependency, corruption, and backlash rather than genuine uplift, since they bypass first-principles reforms like improving or cultural norms that causally drive disparities. Critics contend this collectivist framing discards the liberal ideal of —chance based on merit— for coerced , which demands ongoing state intervention and discriminates against non-preferred groups, such as Asians and whites in U.S. admissions, who face elevated thresholds despite superior qualifications. Ultimately, such policies rest on a flawed premise that past societal inequities justify present individual penalties, ignoring that true progress stems from expanding opportunities for all through , not rationing them by quota.

Historical Development

Origins in the United States

The concept of affirmative action emerged in the context of federal efforts to combat during the civil rights era. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's , issued on June 25, 1941, established the to prohibit discrimination in defense industries based on race, creed, color, or national origin, marking an early government intervention amid labor shortages. This was followed by President Harry S. Truman's on July 26, 1948, which mandated desegregation of the armed forces and equal treatment in the military. These measures focused on nondiscrimination without explicitly requiring proactive steps beyond enforcement. The term "affirmative action" first appeared in federal policy through President John F. Kennedy's , signed on March 6, 1961, which directed government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their , creed, color, or ." This order created the President's Committee on to oversee compliance, emphasizing outreach and recruitment to counteract historical exclusion rather than imposing quotas or preferences. It applied to contracts exceeding $10,000 in value, initially targeting federal procurement to leverage government spending for integration. President expanded these requirements with , issued on September 24, 1965, which prohibited by federal contractors and subcontractors on federal projects over $10,000 and mandated "affirmative action" programs to promote . Unlike Kennedy's order, Johnson's included provisions for written affirmative action plans, including goals and timetables for hiring minorities, enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance. This built on the , which barred but relied on executive action for implementation specifics. Early programs prioritized remedying past exclusion through targeted recruitment, though they faced criticism for potential reverse even at inception.

Expansion and Legal Evolution in the US

Following President John F. Kennedy's on March 6, 1961, which first mandated that contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or ," the policy expanded to require proactive measures beyond nondiscrimination, initially targeting to integrate minorities into contracting workforces. President broadened this framework with on September 24, 1965, which prohibited discrimination by contractors on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or and required contractors with 50 or more employees and contracts exceeding $50,000 to develop written affirmative action plans, enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP). Under President , affirmative action evolved further through the Philadelphia Plan of 1969, the first use of numerical "goals and timetables" for minority hiring in federally funded projects, applying to trades like and electrical work in , which set targets for non-white apprentices (e.g., 25% minority utilization in the first year) to address entrenched exclusion without strict quotas. This model proliferated to other industries and regions, extending affirmative action from pledges to measurable hiring and promotion benchmarks in federal contracting, influencing practices amid civil rights enforcement pressures. By the , universities adopted race-conscious admissions, often voluntarily or under pressure from federal funding conditions, marking expansion beyond to . The Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke invalidated rigid racial quotas in public university admissions, ruling that the -Davis Medical School's reservation of 16 slots for minorities violated the and Title VI of the , but permitted race as one factor in holistic evaluations to achieve . This fragmented 4-1-4 ruling set a allowing "soft" preferences while prohibiting fixed set-asides, influencing subsequent policies. In 2003, struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate point-based system awarding 20 points for race (out of 150), deeming it a mechanical quota-like approach that failed under the . Conversely, upheld the Law School's individualized, holistic review incorporating race narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in viewpoint , though Justice O'Connor's opinion anticipated reevaluation in 25 years. The Fisher v. University of Texas cases refined scrutiny: the 2013 ruling vacated a decision, mandating rigorous without deference to universities on narrow tailoring for race-neutral alternatives. In 2016, the Court upheld Texas's program—admitting top 10% of high school graduates race-neutrally plus holistic review for others—as sufficiently tailored, despite dissent arguing it perpetuated stereotypes without measurable benefits. Expansion in employment persisted via OFCCP regulations, requiring contractors to set utilization goals based on availability data (e.g., 7-20% minority goals in relevant labor markets), though varied and faced challenges like the 1995 Adarand Constructors v. Peña ruling subjecting federal set-asides to . The 2023 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of decision ended race-based admissions in , holding in a 6-3 ruling that Harvard and programs violated the by using race as a negative stereotype-laden factor lacking measurable educational gains or endpoint, overruling Grutter's diversity rationale as insufficiently compelling and failing narrow tailoring. In employment and contracting, President Trump's of January 21, 2025, revoked EO 11246, eliminating federal mandates for affirmative action plans among contractors to prioritize merit-based hiring and end race- and sex-based preferences, though Title VII claims remain enforceable by the EEOC. This shift reflects ongoing legal constraints, with states like (Proposition 209, 1996) and (Proposal 2, 2006) having banned public affirmative action earlier via voter initiatives.

Global Historical Adoption

India's reservation system, a form of affirmative action favoring Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and later Other Backward Classes, originated in the colonial era but was constitutionally enshrined in 1950 to address caste-based discrimination, allocating quotas in jobs, , and legislatures. These provisions reserved approximately 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes initially, with expansions in the 1980s and 1990s extending benefits to broader groups amid political mobilization. Malaysia adopted affirmative action through the in 1971, following ethnic riots in 1969, to elevate the economic status of the Bumiputera majority (Malays and indigenous groups) via quotas in education, public employment, and business ownership targets, aiming to restructure society so that Bumiputera held at least 30% of corporate equity by 1990. This policy, extended multiple times, prioritized native groups over Chinese and Indian minorities in a multiethnic context. Canada implemented employment equity legislation in 1986 via the Employment Equity Act, targeting women, visible minorities, , and persons with disabilities through goals for representation in federally regulated workplaces, evolving from a 1984 report that rejected U.S.-style quotas in favor of data-driven outreach and accommodations. The policy emphasized removing barriers rather than strict numerical preferences, with annual reporting requirements for employers. Post-apartheid introduced affirmative action in the mid-1990s to redress racial inequalities, with the Employment Equity Act of 1998 mandating of black Africans, , Indians, and women in employment, followed by the Broad-Based Act of 2003, which scored companies on ownership, management, and procurement targets favoring historically disadvantaged groups. These measures built on the 1994 democratic transition, using scorecards to incentivize compliance in private sectors. Brazil's affirmative action emerged in the early 2000s, with the first state-level quotas for black and indigenous students in universities enacted in Rio de Janeiro in 2000, expanding nationally through a 2012 federal law reserving 50% of public university spots for low-income and racial minority applicants from public schools, amid debates over racial classification in a mixed society. By 2012, over 70 public institutions had adopted such policies voluntarily or via regulation. In , affirmative measures for developed incrementally, with the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act of 1986 focusing primarily on gender but enabling targeted Indigenous recruitment in ; broader Indigenous-specific policies, such as reconciliation action plans and priority hiring in the Australian Public Service since the 1990s, emphasized special measures under international human rights frameworks rather than fixed quotas. European adoption has been cautious and varied, often termed "positive " to comply with anti-discrimination directives, with momentum building in the ; countries like the introduced ethnic minority targets in recruitment post-2000 under equality duties, while maintains color-blind policies prohibiting ethnic , though gender quotas in corporate boards (e.g., 40% mandated in ) represent a softer parallel. The EU's 2000 Racial Equality Directive permits measures to prevent disadvantage but bans quotas unless justified proportionally. Globally, affirmative action policies proliferated from the onward in post-colonial and post-conflict contexts, adapting U.S. influences to local ethnic or dynamics, though many shifted toward needs-based criteria by the 2000s amid criticisms of perpetuating divisions.

Implementation Mechanisms

Hard Preferences: Quotas and Set-Asides

Hard preferences in affirmative action encompass rigid mechanisms such as quotas, which mandate specific numerical targets or percentages for of designated groups, and set-asides, which reserve discrete portions of opportunities exclusively for those groups. These differ from softer approaches by enforcing exclusionary barriers against non-preferred applicants, prioritizing group identity over individual qualifications. In , explicit quotas were employed in the 1970s, exemplified by the University of California Davis Medical School's policy reserving 16 seats in its entering class for minority applicants, evaluated separately from others. The U.S. invalidated this in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke on June 28, 1978, ruling that such racial quotas violate the by discriminating against non-minority applicants, though it permitted race as one factor in holistic review. Post-Bakke, quotas in admissions have been constitutionally prohibited, yet informal targets persisting in practice have faced scrutiny for approximating quota effects. Set-asides predominate in federal contracting, where programs like the Administration's 8(a) initiative reserve contracts for socially and economically disadvantaged firms, often minority-owned. In data through 2023, approximately $76 billion in federal contracts were awarded to minority-owned es via such mechanisms. These programs aim to counteract historical disparities, with studies indicating minority firms historically secure about 57% of contracts expected based on their share and prevalence. However, set-asides must withstand under cases like Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995), requiring narrow tailoring to compelling interests without unduly burdening others. Empirical critiques highlight inefficiencies, including reduced overall and merit dilution; for instance, quota systems in analogous contexts correlate with lowered metrics among beneficiaries due to selection below competency thresholds. Such preferences foster and , as evidenced by persistent racial sorting in beneficiary pools rather than integration, undermining claims of advancing color-blind equality. Proponents attribute gains in to these tools, yet causal evidence links them to higher administrative costs and legal challenges, with non-preferred groups experiencing measurable exclusion from opportunities.

Soft Measures: Goals, Timetables, and Outreach

Soft measures in affirmative action encompass aspirational targets known as goals, associated timelines referred to as timetables, and proactive recruitment efforts termed , designed to enhance of underrepresented groups without mandating fixed numerical outcomes. Unlike hard preferences such as quotas, which impose rigid requirements enforceable by disqualification, soft measures emphasize efforts by employers or institutions to expand applicant pools and address underrepresentation based on available qualified candidates in the relevant labor market or applicant pool. Legally, , quotas are permissible only following judicial findings of , whereas goals serve as benchmarks within affirmative action programs (AAPs) to compliance without automatic penalties for non-attainment if reasonable steps are demonstrated. Goals typically involve numerical targets derived from analyses of local demographics, workforce availability, and historical hiring patterns, aiming for over time. For federal contractors, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) requires AAPs to establish annual placement goals for minorities and women where utilization falls below availability benchmarks, such as the percentage of qualified minorities in the relevant recruitment area. Timetables provide structured schedules, often spanning 3 to 5 years, to incrementally achieve these goals through progressive hiring and promotion, allowing adjustments for market changes or progress. The Revised Philadelphia Plan of 1969 exemplifies early implementation of these measures, mandating federal contractors on construction projects exceeding $500,000 in the area to set minority hiring goals and timetables for six trades, including plumbers and electricians. Initial goals ranged from 1 to 1.5 percent minority employment in the first year, escalating to 8 to 25 percent by the fourth or fifth year, calibrated to estimated local minority availability of skilled workers in each trade; contractors submitted projections with bids, subject to OFCC approval, and demonstrated compliance via progress reports without strict quotas. This model expanded nationwide by 1971, influencing broader federal contracting requirements under 11246. Outreach constitutes the operational component, involving targeted to broaden diverse applicant pools, such as in minority-focused , partnering with organizations, attending job fairs at historically colleges, or establishing programs. Federal contractors must document outreach activities in AAPs, including establishment contacts with resource groups and evaluation of their effectiveness in generating qualified minority referrals. In , pre-2023 examples included initiatives like visiting underserved high schools or offering preparatory programs to encourage applications from underrepresented demographics, framed as voluntary expansion of recruitment rather than admissions preferences. These measures aim to mitigate barriers like lack of awareness or networks, though critics argue they can indirectly pressure outcomes akin to de facto quotas if regulatory scrutiny intensifies non-compliance.

Monitoring, Enforcement, and Compliance Challenges

In the , enforcement of affirmative action in federal contracting historically relied on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which conducted compliance evaluations auditing affirmative action plans (AAPs) for non-discrimination and efforts. These audits often revealed challenges in , with common issues including incomplete applicant records, inaccurate demographic categorizations, and inconsistent self-identification responses, which complicated verification of utilization goals and increased liability risks for contractors. In 2023, OFCCP recovered $17.3 million from contractors for hiring and compensation disparities, underscoring persistent violations despite required annual AAP submissions, though critics argued that analyses sometimes conflated correlation with causation absent proof of intent. Compliance burdens intensified with regulatory shifts, such as expanded pre- and post-hire mandates, straining smaller contractors' resources and leading to inconsistent implementation across firms. Higher education faced distinct monitoring hurdles, particularly after the Supreme Court's June 29, 2023, decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibited race-conscious admissions under the and Title VI. Institutions struggled to redesign processes for race-neutral compliance, with admissions offices required to document how any lingering considerations tied to individualized experiences rather than group traits, yet facing scrutiny over opaque essay evaluations and holistic reviews that risked claims. via Department of Education Title VI probes proved uneven, as evidenced by investigations into selective universities for pre-ruling practices, but post-decision litigation threatened funding cuts or lawsuits for perceived defiance, with groups like filing suits against institutions allegedly evading the ban through indirect racial proxies. These challenges highlighted causal difficulties in measuring " gains" without race data, fostering compliance ambiguity amid political pressures from state attorneys general interpreting the ruling expansively. Globally, quota-based systems amplified enforcement pitfalls, often devolving into abuse and inefficiency. In , reservation quotas for scheduled castes and tribes in jobs and —mandating up to 50% set-asides—encountered implementation gaps, including "creamy layer" exploitation by affluent beneficiaries and evasion via falsified certificates, with studies showing quotas failing to uplift the most disadvantaged due to poor targeting and resentment-fueled backlash. Malaysia's Bumiputera preferences, reserving 30% of corporate equity and university seats for ethnic Malays, drew criticism for fostering , , and economic distortions, as unqualified appointees undermined merit and sparked inter-ethnic tensions, prompting public rejection of the policy by 2025 amid calls for needs-based reforms over racial proxies. In both cases, lax monitoring—reliant on self-reported compliance without robust audits—exacerbated reverse claims and long-term inefficiencies, illustrating how rigid quotas hinder causal attribution of outcomes to policy intent versus selection effects.

Empirical Outcomes and Evidence

Diversity Gains and Short-Term Metrics

In , affirmative action policies have produced measurable short-term increases in the of underrepresented minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics, at selective U.S. institutions. Prior to the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, race-conscious admissions sustained black shares at elite universities at levels approximately double those projected under race-neutral criteria; for example, econometric models from the litigation estimated that black admits at Harvard would fall from 14% to around 6% without racial preferences. Early post-ruling data confirms these dynamics, with institutions like reporting black freshman dropping from 15% in the class of 2027 to 5% in the class of 2028, and seeing a decline from 9% to 3%. Similar patterns emerged in states with prior bans, such as after Proposition 209 in , where black at the system initially fell by 30-50% at top campuses like and UCLA before partial recovery via race-neutral alternatives. These enrollment gains, while evident in aggregate metrics, varied by selectivity and were often concentrated in the 5-15% range for targeted groups, reflecting the limited pool of qualified applicants meeting academic thresholds without preferences. A of 194 global studies found that 63% documented improved representation for ethnic or racial minorities under affirmative action, primarily through short-term boosts in access rather than sustained proportional parity. In , contractor mandates under similarly yielded relative increases of 15-20% in black shares and 10-15% for women during the 1970s and 1980s compared to non-covered firms, equating to 1-2 absolute gains in workforces averaging 20-30% minority composition. These effects were most pronounced in industries like and , where drove targeted and hiring adjustments within 1-3 years of .
MetricPre-AA Ban/Control (Example)Post-AA Ban/Without Preferences (Example)Source
Black at Selective U.S. Colleges10-15%4-7%
Minority in Contractors (1970s-80s)15-20% relative increase over non-contractorsBaseline without mandate
Short-term metrics thus highlight affirmative action's role in elevating immediate representation figures, though such gains frequently relied on deviations from merit-based sorting and showed diminished persistence absent ongoing interventions.

Mismatch Effects on Beneficiaries

Mismatch theory posits that affirmative action beneficiaries, often admitted with credentials substantially below their peers at selective institutions, experience diminished and outcomes due to being placed in environments exceeding their levels. This leads to lower grade-point averages (GPAs), reduced learning efficacy, and increased , as students struggle relative to better-matched peers at less selective schools. Empirical analyses, particularly in law schools, indicate that such placements result in fewer overall qualifications for beneficiaries, as high failure rates at elite institutions outweigh gains from attendance. In legal education, Richard Sander's examination of the Law School Admission Council's Bar Passage Study data for the 1991 entering cohort revealed stark disparities: Black students at the most selective law schools (top 14 by U.S. News rankings) had first-time bar passage rates of approximately 45%, compared to over 80% for similarly credentialed students at schools where their entering metrics aligned with the median. Controlling for LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, mismatch effects explained much of the racial gap in bar passage, with simulations showing that eliminating racial preferences could increase Black lawyers by 7-8% overall, as more would succeed at mid-tier institutions rather than dropping out or failing at elites. Subsequent school-specific analyses confirmed that mismatch depresses bar passage equivalently to a 120-point LSAT deficit, with Black attrition rates at top schools reaching 19% versus 8% for whites. Undergraduate evidence similarly highlights performance shortfalls. At the , Black and Hispanic students admitted under affirmative action earned GPAs averaging 0.5-1.0 points lower than white and Asian peers with comparable credentials, correlating with higher rates and reduced persistence in fields. National data from selective colleges show minority beneficiaries often cluster in the bottom decile of class ranks, fostering isolation and underperformance; for instance, post-admission studies estimate that race-neutral admissions would boost Black science and engineering graduates by redirecting students to better-aligned campuses. While some analyses dispute net harm by emphasizing long-term or , they frequently overlook attrition and credential attainment, with mismatch effects persisting after controlling for preparation variables. Statewide bans, such as California's Proposition 209 in , yielded mixed but supportive results: minority graduation rates at affected campuses stabilized or improved for attendees, though overall enrollment declined. Critics of mismatch, often from academic institutions, argue that elite environments provide superior resources mitigating deficits, citing studies showing no overall graduation harm. However, these counter-studies rely on aggregated data that mask within-school credential gaps and fail to replicate findings from disaggregated, individual-level analyses like Sander's, which demonstrate causal links via regression controls and counterfactual modeling. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard acknowledged mismatch risks, noting empirical evidence of lower GPAs and higher dropouts for underrepresented minorities at Harvard and UNC, underscoring that preferences may stigmatize and underprepare rather than empower.

Long-Term Economic and Social Impacts

Longitudinal analyses of affirmative action bans in states like reveal heterogeneous economic outcomes for underrepresented minorities (URMs). Following 's Proposition 209 in 1996, URM applicants to schools experienced a 5% decline in average annual wages between ages 24 and 34, attributed to reduced access to selective institutions and associated networks, though graduation rates at less selective campuses increased for some groups. Conversely, a national assessment of bans in , , , and found that Black men earned 2.6% higher relative to White men post-ban, while Black women saw a 4.2% earnings decline, alongside reduced college degree completion (4 percentage points lower for women) and employment rates. These patterns suggest gender-specific effects, with men potentially benefiting from better academic matching at mid-tier schools, while women face amplified barriers in enrollment and persistence. In contexts, affirmative action has modestly boosted minority representation without clear evidence of productivity losses or wage suppression for non-beneficiaries. Reviews of contractor from the 1970s-1980s show male grew 5% faster under , spreading across occupations rather than concentrating in high-skill roles. However, 21st-century analyses indicate , with no significant effects on hiring shares or wages amid evolving labor markets and reduced vigor. Mismatch effects in professional fields exacerbate long-term disparities: for students admitted via preferences, bar passage rates drop substantially, yielding fewer licensed attorneys and lower lifetime earnings compared to attendance at credentials-matched schools. Socially, affirmative action fosters resentment and identity-based divisions by signaling inferiority to beneficiaries and unfairness to others. A 1995 survey found 51% of students, including majorities of Whites (55%) and Asians (50%), agreed it heightens racial tensions, with males more likely to perceive divisions than females. In , caste quotas since 1950 have entrenched group entitlements, expanding from scheduled castes to upper castes (e.g., 10% quota in ) and fueling protests, as seen in Jat demands in 2016, while perpetuating as a primary social and electoral cleavage rather than enabling . This stigmatization undermines merit-based cohesion, with beneficiaries facing persistent doubts about qualifications, and non-beneficiaries viewing policies as reverse , eroding trust in institutions over decades.

Regional and National Approaches

United States: Higher Education and Employment

Affirmative action policies in U.S. permitted selective universities to consider applicants' as one factor among many in admissions decisions, ostensibly to achieve a "" of underrepresented minorities for educational diversity benefits. This practice originated in the late 1960s amid civil rights efforts but gained legal footing through rulings applying under the . In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court invalidated racial quotas at the —where 16 of 100 slots were reserved for minorities—but allowed race as a "plus factor" in individualized reviews if narrowly tailored to a compelling interest like diversity. Subsequent cases, such as (2003), struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate point system awarding 20 points (out of 150) for minority status as insufficiently individualized, while upheld the law school's holistic process that same year, emphasizing no fixed targets and a foreseeable end to such race-conscious measures. By the early 2000s, many elite institutions, including Harvard and the , employed racial preferences yielding admission odds boosts equivalent to 200-400 SAT points for black and Hispanic applicants compared to equally qualified whites or Asians, per analyses of leaked admissions data. Empirical studies indicate these policies boosted short-term enrollment of black and Hispanic students at selective schools—rising from 4% to 8% at Ivy League institutions between 1970 and 2000—but often at the cost of academic mismatch, where beneficiaries attended environments exceeding their preparation levels. Law professor Richard Sander's mismatch hypothesis, developed through analyses of large datasets like the Bar Passage Study and Law School Admission Council records, posits that racial preferences place minority students in schools where they rank in the bottom decile, leading to higher attrition, lower GPAs (e.g., black students at elite law schools averaging 2.9 GPA vs. 3.5 at mid-tier schools), and reduced credential attainment; for instance, Sander estimated that eliminating preferences could increase black bar passage rates by 8-10% and the number of black lawyers by 7-8% via better-matched placements. Critics, including some econometric reviews, argue mismatch effects are overstated or context-dependent, citing cases where all students benefit from elite environments regardless of relative ranking, though such counter-studies often rely on aggregated data prone to selection bias and fail to isolate causal impacts on long-term outcomes like STEM persistence or graduation rates, which show persistent gaps (e.g., black completion rates at selective colleges lagging 20-30% behind matched peers at less competitive schools). Overall, while diversity metrics improved, evidence suggests net harms to beneficiaries' academic success and professional pipelines, with Asian American applicants facing effective penalties to balance racial demographics. In employment, affirmative action emerged via targeting federal contractors to counteract historical discrimination, requiring proactive recruitment and hiring goals without rigid quotas. President John F. Kennedy's (1961) first mandated "affirmative action" to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment in government contracting, expanded by President Lyndon B. Johnson's (1965), which obligated contractors with 50+ employees and contracts over $50,000 to develop plans including utilization analyses, good-faith goals, and timetables for minority representation proportionate to local labor markets. of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforced compliance through audits, with penalties like debarment for noncompliance; by the 1970s, this covered firms employing over 20% of the private-sector workforce. The Supreme Court's United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979) permitted voluntary private quotas in training programs to remedy proven disparities but barred them absent such findings, shifting emphasis to "soft" measures like and litigation under Title VII of the of 1964. Studies on outcomes reveal modest gains in minority hiring—e.g., a 1-2% increase in managerial representation attributable to contractor mandates from 1970-1990—but negligible effects on overall labor market wages or , with costs including administrative burdens (up to 1-2% of payroll) and potential credential dilution. Analyses of hiring data show affirmative action hires among blacks and Hispanics sometimes exhibited lower pre-hire qualifications (e.g., 10-15% fewer years of on average), though white female beneficiaries did not, raising questions of efficiency and without commensurate productivity losses in aggregate firm performance. In January 2025, President revoked via a new directive, eliminating mandatory affirmative action programs for s effective April 2025 after a transition period, citing restoration of merit-based opportunity and cessation of race-based preferences amid ongoing challenges. This shift aligns with critiques that such policies entrenched zero-sum competition and bypassed color-blind alternatives like skills , though legacy effects persist in halls and roles.

United States: Post-2023 Supreme Court Developments

Following the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 29, 2023, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, which held that race-based admissions at public universities and private institutions receiving federal funds violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, colleges and universities nationwide discontinued explicit consideration of applicants' race in admissions processes. The ruling, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that such programs lacked sufficiently measurable goals and perpetuated racial stereotypes, overruling precedents like Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) while preserving narrow exceptions for military academies. Institutions adapted by revising policies to focus on race-neutral factors, such as socioeconomic status, geographic diversity, and personal essays detailing experiences of adversity, though critics argued some essays indirectly proxied for race. The Biden administration responded swiftly with non-binding guidance from the Departments of Education and Justice on August 14, 2023, outlining permissible strategies to promote without violating the ruling, including targeted to underrepresented high schools, holistic review of life experiences, and expansion of need-based financial aid. A subsequent report on September 28, 2023, detailed evidence-based approaches like partnering with community organizations and investing in K-12 pipelines, drawing from pre-ruling data on race-neutral programs' efficacy in states with bans. President Biden publicly criticized the decision as a "mistake" but urged , while directing federal agencies to strengthen enforcement against in other areas. Enforcement actions included the Department of Education's issuing a "Dear Colleague" letter in 2023 clarifying that institutions must eliminate race in admissions but could continue and athletics recruitment if applied consistently. Enrollment data from the 2024-2025 admissions cycle revealed measurable declines in and representation at selective institutions, with an analysis of over 100 elite colleges showing enrollment dropping by an average of 2-5 percentage points at schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton compared to pre-ruling levels. The share of applicants not disclosing doubled to about 4% at top schools, potentially masking further shifts, while Asian American enrollment rose modestly. At the , enrollment fell from 6.1% to 5.2% and from 16.5% to 15.1%. These changes aligned with patterns from state bans, such as California's Proposition 209 (), where long-term studies indicated reduced minority graduation rates and labor market mismatches without overall diversity recovery. In employment contexts, the ruling did not directly alter Title VII standards, which permit voluntary race-conscious plans if they remedy manifest imbalances with temporary, narrowly tailored measures, as affirmed in v. Weber (1979). However, it spurred legal challenges to corporate (DEI) initiatives, with lawsuits alleging reverse discrimination in hiring and promotions at firms like and , citing the decision's reasoning on colorblind . The maintained that claims remain viable for addressing systemic barriers, but employers faced heightened scrutiny, leading some to reframe DEI as merit-focused training. No federal appellate rulings had extended the ban to private employment by October 2025, though pending cases tested set-asides in government contracting under Title VII and Section 1981.

Europe and International Organizations

In Europe, policies analogous to affirmative action are typically framed as "positive action" measures, which aim to address specific disadvantages faced by underrepresented groups without mandating quotas or preferential treatment that compromises merit. The European Union's Directive (2000/43/EC) permits member states to implement positive action to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin, provided such measures do not result in the automatic exclusion of non-beneficiaries or the selection of less qualified candidates. However, implementation varies widely, with most countries emphasizing soft measures like targeted , programs, and over hard quotas, reflecting a broader commitment to formal and assimilationist principles that discourage race-based categorization. France exemplifies this restraint, where the republican model prohibits ethnic or racial statistics and "positive discrimination," instead prioritizing socioeconomic criteria in policies like the 2001 Urban Renewal Program or university access initiatives for disadvantaged zones, which indirectly benefit immigrant-origin populations without explicit racial preferences. (Article 3) enshrines and bans , allowing positive action primarily for (e.g., women in via targeted funding) but rejecting race-based quotas due to concerns over group rights undermining individual merit and social cohesion; ethnic is limited, complicating targeted interventions. In the , the authorizes positive action for underrepresented groups in employment and education, such as tie-breaker preferences in hiring or bursaries for ethnic minorities, but prohibits quotas unless justified under strict tests, with empirical reviews showing modest gains from voluntary initiatives like the 2010 public sector equality duty. like and have mandated quotas for corporate boards (e.g., Norway's 40% female quota since 2003, achieving near-compliance by 2008), but race-ethnicity preferences remain rare, confined to integration programs for immigrants emphasizing language and skills training. Across the , and legal challenges favor soft approaches, as quotas risk stigmatizing beneficiaries and fostering resentment, with studies indicating persistent ethnic labor market penalties despite such measures. International organizations endorse affirmative action in principle as a tool to rectify historical and promote , distinguishing it from quotas by emphasizing temporary, targeted interventions. The (ILO) views affirmative action as compatible with Convention No. 111 (1958), which prohibits in and permits special measures to advance for disadvantaged groups, including ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, through and reasonable accommodations rather than preferential hiring. The , via instruments like the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of (1965, Article 1(4)), authorizes "special measures" for racial or ethnic groups to ensure equal enjoyment of rights, applicable in and but requiring such actions to be discontinued once is achieved; CEDAW (1979, Article 4) similarly supports temporary measures for women. In practice, UN agencies implement diversity targets, such as the 2020-2021 push for underrepresented nationals in staffing, but face criticism for uneven enforcement and reliance on self-reported data amid geopolitical influences on appointments. These frameworks influence global norms but yield to national , with European states often adopting diluted versions to align with commitments while prioritizing over group entitlements.

Asia: Quota Systems in India and Malaysia

In India, the reservation system, enshrined in the Constitution of 1950, allocates quotas in public sector employment, education, and legislative seats to address historical disadvantages faced by Scheduled Castes (SC, formerly "untouchables"), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Initially set at 15% for SC and 7.5% for ST, the system expanded in 1990 following the Mandal Commission recommendations to include 27% for OBC, bringing total reservations to around 49.5% in central institutions, though some states like Tamil Nadu exceed 69% through sub-categorizations. These quotas prioritize candidates from designated groups in admissions to universities and medical colleges, as well as civil service recruitment, with provisions like the "creamy layer" exclusion for affluent OBC families to target the truly disadvantaged. A 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among general castes was added in 2019, reflecting a partial shift toward economic criteria amid debates over caste-based perpetuation. Empirical evidence indicates reservations have boosted enrollment and representation: SC/ST shares in rose from negligible levels pre-1950 to about 14-15% by the , correlating with modest reductions in these groups through access to . However, studies highlight mismatch effects, where reserved students in institutions like IITs exhibit higher dropout rates (up to 30% for SC/ST in some programs) and lower subsequent in competitive sectors, suggesting quotas may place beneficiaries in environments exceeding their preparatory levels without adequate bridging support. In , while OBC quotas post-2008 increased their central job shares by 10-15%, overall labor market outcomes for reserved groups lag, with persistent underperformance in private sectors unbound by mandates, raising causal questions about whether quotas foster dependency or genuine skill uplift. The 1990 implementation sparked nationwide protests and self-immolations, underscoring zero-sum tensions as general-category candidates faced reduced opportunities, with courts occasionally capping quotas at 50% to preserve merit-based access. In , affirmative action for Bumiputera—Malays and groups comprising about 60-70% of the population—originated with the (NEP) launched in 1971 following race riots in 1969, aiming to eradicate poverty and restructure the economy so Bumiputera held 30% of corporate equity, up from 2% at . This includes racial quotas in admissions (often 70-90% for Bumiputera), hiring (90%+ Bumiputera-dominated), and mandatory Bumiputera equity in businesses, with licensing and contracts favoring them to build economic parity against historically dominant ethnic Chinese (23%) and Indians (7%). The policy evolved into the New Development Policy in 1991 and continues under variants like the Bumiputera Economic Transformation plan, though targets like 30% equity remain unmet (achieving ~24% by 2020), partly due to exemptions and crony allocations. Outcomes show mixed causal impacts: Bumiputera poverty fell from 49% in 1970 to under 10% by 2010, with increased and middle-class emergence, yet intra-Bumiputera inequality widened, as benefits accrued disproportionately to politically connected elites via rather than broad uplift. Criticisms center on efficiency losses, with quotas blamed for a brain drain of over 1.86 million skilled citizens (5.6% of ) by 2023, including high-achieving non-Bumiputera fleeing perceived in merit-based fields like and . Empirical analyses link the policy to racial and stunted private-sector growth, as non-Bumiputera firms face ownership hurdles, contributing to Malaysia's lag behind merit-driven neighbors like in innovation indices. Despite extensions to 2035, reforms face resistance, with evidence suggesting quotas entrench dependency and undermine long-term competitiveness by prioritizing group identity over individual capability.

Africa and Latin America: Post-Colonial Contexts

In post-colonial , affirmative action policies emerged primarily to address the entrenched economic and social disparities inherited from colonial rule and, in cases like , apartheid. provides the most prominent example, with the Employment Equity Act of 1998 mandating workforce representation proportional to demographic demographics, targeting "designated groups" including black Africans, , and Indians. This was expanded by the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) Act of 2003, which uses a scorecard system to incentivize companies through tax breaks and procurement preferences for achieving targets in black ownership (at least 25%), management control, skills development, and enterprise development. Empirical assessments of BBBEE indicate partial success in narrowing the racial wage gap, with black-white earnings disparities declining from a factor of 5 in 1994 to about 3 by the , attributed partly to preferential hiring and promotion. However, outcomes have been uneven, with evidence of "fronting"—where companies nominally comply without substantive —and , as benefits disproportionately accrued to a politically connected rather than the broader , exacerbating intra-black . By 2024, reviews highlighted faltering , prompting proposals for reforms to emphasize skills over quotas, amid criticisms that the policy has stifled and contributed to South Africa's 32% rate in 2023. Elsewhere in Africa, similar policies exist but with less centralized enforcement; Namibia's Affirmative Action (Employment) Act of 1995 mirrors South Africa's equity mandates for previously disadvantaged groups, while Zimbabwe's laws since 2008 required 51% local (black) ownership in foreign firms, leading to and economic contraction without commensurate broad-based gains. These initiatives, rooted in post-independence redress, often prioritize ethnic or majorities over meritocratic criteria, yielding mixed results where short-term representation increases but long-term productivity lags due to skills mismatches. In , post-colonial affirmative action targets legacies of Iberian conquest, slavery, and marginalization, focusing on Afro-descendants and who comprise significant minorities amid mestizo and white majorities. Brazil's Lei de Cotas, enacted in 2012, reserves 50% of admissions for students self-identifying as , (mixed-race), or , proportional to demographics, alongside income and public school criteria; by , this boosted and enrollment from under 10% to over 40% in federal institutions. Verification relies on commissions assessing phenotypic traits to curb fraud, though self-identification predominates, with a national survey showing 50% public approval amid debates over accuracy. Mexico and other nations emphasize indigenous integration over strict racial quotas, with constitutional reforms since 2001 reserving parliamentary seats and scholarships for candidates, but without Brazil's scale; , recognized as a category in the 2020 (2% of ), benefit from targeted programs amid persistent gaps where households earn 30-40% less than non-indigenous. Empirical reveal expanded access but highlight challenges like academic underperformance among quota beneficiaries due to preparatory deficits, with critics arguing policies reinforce racial categorization in societies historically promoting mestizaje (racial mixing) as a unifying ideal. Regional studies confirm darker-skinned groups face 20-50% higher rates, yet affirmative measures have not fully closed occupational disparities, prompting calls for class-based alternatives to avoid perpetuating .

Legal and Constitutional Debates

US Constitutional Challenges and Key Rulings

Affirmative action policies in have faced constitutional primarily under the of the , which prohibits states from denying equal protection of the laws and subjects race-based classifications to , requiring a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring. Challengers, often non-minority applicants denied admission, argue that such policies discriminate on racial grounds, inverting the discrimination they purport to remedy, and fail due to inadequate evidence of benefits outweighing harms like stigmatization or mismatch. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the addressed a challenge to the Medical School's admissions program, which reserved 16 of 100 seats for minority applicants, effectively operating as a . By a 5-4 vote, the Court invalidated the quota system as violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the , holding that race could not be used to exclude any applicant from consideration. However, in a plurality opinion by Justice Powell, the Court permitted race as "a plus factor" in holistic admissions to achieve the compelling interest of student body diversity, drawing analogy to the First Amendment interests in . Allan Bakke, a white applicant rejected twice despite higher scores than admitted minorities, was ordered admitted. The Court revisited these principles in companion cases and (2003), challenging the University of Michigan's admissions practices. In Gratz, a 6-3 decision struck down the undergraduate program's mechanical 20-point bonus for underrepresented minorities as insufficiently individualized and thus not narrowly tailored under . Conversely, in Grutter, a 5-4 ruling upheld the Law School's holistic review process, where race was one of many factors in a "highly individualized, holistic review," deeming diversity a compelling interest and the program narrowly tailored, though Justice O'Connor noted it should not persist indefinitely, suggesting review in 25 years. Dissenters, led by Justice Thomas, contended that such preferences perpetuated racial stereotypes and lacked empirical justification. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013, 2016) tested the post-Grutter framework against the University of Texas's "top ten percent" plan supplemented by race for remaining seats. In the 2013 7-1 decision, the Court remanded for stricter application of narrow tailoring, rejecting deferential review of university judgments and requiring courts to verify no workable race-neutral alternatives. The 2016 4-3 affirmance upheld the program, finding it met given UT's evidence of inadequate diversity from race-neutral means alone, though Justice Kennedy's concurrence emphasized skepticism toward racial classifications. Abigail Fisher, a white applicant, claimed disadvantage, but the Court deferred to UT's data on holistic benefits. The 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (consolidated, 6-3) marked a pivotal reversal, overruling Grutter and holding that race-conscious admissions at both public (UNC) and private (Harvard, receiving federal funds) institutions violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion rejected student body diversity as a sufficiently compelling interest, citing vague definitions, lack of measurable educational gains, and failure to define endpoints, while noting racial preferences burdened non-beneficiaries (e.g., Asians faced penalties at Harvard per trial evidence) without proportional benefits. The rulings apply strict scrutiny uniformly, eliminating prior deference, and permit race discussion in essays only if tied to individual character traits. Justice Thomas concurred, arguing racial classifications inherently undermine equality; Justice Gorsuch emphasized colorblindness under law. Dissenters, led by Justice Sotomayor, defended diversity's necessity for remedying historical inequities, but the majority faulted lack of empirical support for ongoing discrimination justification. Post-ruling, institutions must pivot to race-neutral proxies, though challenges persist in implementation.

International Legal Variations and Human Rights Frameworks

, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of (CERD), permit states to implement temporary special measures to advance disadvantaged racial or ethnic groups, provided these do not result in the maintenance of unequal rights once objectives are met. Article 1(4) of CERD explicitly states that such measures "shall not be deemed racial discrimination" if designed to ensure equal enjoyment of rights and are discontinued upon achievement of parity. Similarly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) under Article 4 authorizes temporary special measures to accelerate de facto equality for women, viewing them as non-discriminatory tools to address structural barriers. The UN Committee, interpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has affirmed that affirmative action aligns with non-discrimination principles when proportionate and aimed at rather than formal equality alone. In the European human rights framework, the (ECHR) under Article 14 prohibits in the enjoyment of Convention rights but accommodates positive action measures that pursue legitimate aims like remedying factual inequalities, subject to a test by the (ECtHR). The ECtHR has upheld targeted positive , such as gender quotas in politics or employment, as compatible with the Convention when they do not impose an absolute bar on majority groups and remain temporary. However, the Court requires to prevent measures from entrenching divisions or exceeding necessity, as seen in rulings emphasizing that reverse claims must balance against the goal of rectifying historical underrepresentation. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, through its Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa (), endorses affirmative action to eliminate against women, mandating states to adopt measures ensuring equal access to opportunities in public and private spheres. Article 18 of the Charter promotes equal protection and benefits, with the African interpreting this to support policies addressing socio-economic disparities from colonial legacies or imbalances, though implementation varies by state without uniform temporality requirements. Within the Inter-American system, the and interpretations by the (IACHR) endorse affirmative action as essential for , particularly for , women, and racial minorities facing historical exclusion. The IACHR has advocated for such measures to counteract systemic barriers, as in its 2023 statement urging consideration of affirmative action's role in alleviating racial discrimination's legacy in education access. Unlike stricter proportionality tests, Inter-American allows broader flexibility for states to tailor interventions to regional inequalities, provided they advance non-discrimination under 24. Legal variations across frameworks hinge on reconciling formal with substantive remedies: instruments like CERD and CEDAW temporariness to avoid perpetuating group-based privileges, while regional systems permit ongoing application in contexts of entrenched , raising debates on when measures transition from corrective to preferential. Empirical assessments of compliance often reveal implementation gaps, with UN treaty bodies critiquing indefinite quotas in some states for risking inequality maintenance.

Major Controversies

Reverse Discrimination and Zero-Sum Effects

Critics of affirmative action argue that it constitutes reverse by systematically disadvantaging non-preferred groups, such as whites and Asians, in favor of racial minorities, violating equal protection principles. In the 2009 case Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of New Haven discarded promotion exam results for firefighters after discovering that white and Hispanic candidates had significantly outperformed black candidates, fearing disparate-impact lawsuits; the Court ruled 5-4 that this action intentionally discriminated against the higher-scoring plaintiffs under Title VII of the , as no strong evidence justified overriding the test outcomes. Similarly, in contexts, affirmative action preferences have led to claims where qualified majority-group applicants are passed over; for instance, data from federal sector analyses show that such policies can reduce hiring probabilities for non-minorities by prioritizing race over merit. In admissions, reverse discrimination claims gained prominence through Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), where statistical evidence revealed that Asian American applicants received lower "personal ratings" despite superior academic and extracurricular profiles, effectively requiring them to score 140 SAT points higher than white applicants, 270 points higher than applicants, and 450 points higher than black applicants for equivalent admission chances. The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision held that Harvard's race-conscious admissions discriminated against Asians, eliminating the "personality" penalty that masked bias, as internal data showed Asians comprising only 14% of admits despite higher qualifications relative to other groups. This pattern extends to other elite institutions, where econometric models indicate that affirmative action boosts minority enrollment by displacing Asian and white applicants who meet or exceed objective thresholds. The zero-sum nature of affirmative action amplifies these effects, as fixed enrollment or promotion slots mean gains for preferred groups directly reduce opportunities for others; for example, Harvard's admissions model demonstrated that increasing and admits by race preferences correspondingly lowered Asian admits by comparable margins, creating a where no net expansion occurs. Empirical studies, including those on mismatch theory by Richard Sander, further illustrate how placing underqualified beneficiaries in selective environments leads to higher attrition rates—up to 50% for students versus 20% for matched peers—while excluding better-qualified non-minorities from those slots perpetuates inefficiency without expanding overall minority success metrics like graduation or professional licensure. In zero-sum systems like classes or job promotions, this not only harms excluded high-achievers but also fails to yield proportional societal benefits, as evidenced by stagnant minority representation in top fields despite decades of preferences.

Stigmatization, Dependency, and Cultural Impacts

Critics of affirmative action contend that it imposes a on beneficiaries, leading others to attribute their successes to preferential treatment rather than merit or . indicates that individuals selected through affirmative action policies are often stereotyped as less competent, with observers inferring incompetence and reduced potential from the of such programs. This perception persists even when beneficiaries demonstrate high , as the policy signals lower underlying qualifications. The mismatch hypothesis, advanced by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, posits that affirmative action exacerbates stigmatization by placing underqualified students in academically demanding environments where they struggle, reinforcing doubts about their competence. Analysis of law school data from the 1990s and 2000s shows black students admitted with large racial preferences at elite institutions had bar passage rates 20-30 percentage points lower than comparable students at mid-tier schools, with graduation rates dropping accordingly. This mismatch fosters internal stigma as well, with beneficiaries internalizing failure risks and questioning their legitimacy, as argued by Shelby Steele, who describes preferences as creating a "burden of doubt" that undermines authentic self-esteem. Affirmative action can engender by reducing incentives for rigorous preparation and merit-based , as beneficiaries anticipate preferential access. In Malaysia's Bumiputera quota , implemented since 1971, such policies have been linked to a "culture of " marked by lowered standards and increased , with ethnic Malays showing persistent underperformance relative to non-preferred groups despite decades of preferences. Similarly, U.S. analyses suggest that repeated reliance on race-based boosts discourages in skills , perpetuating cycles where groups prioritize for quotas over advancement. On a cultural level, affirmative action erodes meritocratic norms by subordinating individual achievement to group equity, fostering a grievance-oriented that prioritizes identity-based claims over universal standards. Shelby Steele argues this shifts black cultural focus from responsibility and excellence to victimhood narratives, stalling broader societal integration and mobility gains seen pre-1970s. Evidence from post-preference cohorts indicates compromised trust in institutional outcomes, with high-achieving minorities facing skepticism that diminishes collective incentives for excellence and reinforces zero-sum racial dynamics. This cultural shift, critics maintain, weakens societal emphasis on causal links between effort and success, prioritizing symbolic representation over substantive progress.

Political Responses and Public Opinion Data

President condemned the Supreme Court's June 29, 2023, decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. , which prohibited race-based considerations in college admissions, describing it as a "severe disappointment" and asserting that the ruling undermined efforts to address historical while calling for alternative paths to campus diversity. In contrast, former President praised the ruling as a "great and right decision" that restored by eliminating racial preferences, aligning with lawmakers who viewed it as a victory for and equal protection under the law. The decision elicited sharp partisan divisions, with Democrats largely decrying it as regressive and Republicans hailing it as corrective, reflecting broader ideological splits on race-conscious policies. Public opinion surveys conducted after the 2023 ruling indicate majority support for ending race-based affirmative action in admissions. A Gallup poll from early found that 68% of viewed the Court's prohibition on racial considerations as "mostly a good thing," with approval rates highest among White respondents at 72%, followed by 63% of Asians and varying lower among other groups. Similarly, a survey in spring 2023 showed 50% of U.S. adults opposing the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, compared to 33% in favor, with stark gaps: 74% of Republicans disapproving versus 54% of Democrats approving. These findings underscore a consistent trend of opposition to explicit racial preferences, even as broader support for goals persists, though earlier polls like Gallup's historical data noted gradual increases in acceptance of affirmative action concepts prior to the ruling.
Poll SourceDateKey FindingBreakdown
GallupJan 202468% view end of race-based AA as mostly goodWhites: 72%; Asians: 63%
Pew ResearchSpring 202350% oppose race in admissionsRepublicans: 74% oppose; Democrats: 54% favor
Internationally, on quota-like affirmative action remains contested, with studies reviewing global programs noting widespread despite evidence of gains in 63% of examined cases, though specific polling is sparser outside the U.S. and often reflects cultural variances in acceptance of group-based remedies. In regions like , surveys indicate qualified support for policies addressing inequality barriers, but resistance grows where such measures are perceived as perpetuating division rather than merit.

Alternatives to Race-Based Policies

Class- and Merit-Based Approaches

Class-based affirmative action prioritizes socioeconomic factors such as family income, parental education levels, neighborhood characteristics, and high school quality in admissions decisions, aiming to benefit disadvantaged students regardless of race. Proponents, including policy analyst , argue that this approach targets economic barriers more directly than race-based policies, which often advantage middle- and upper-income minorities while overlooking poor whites and Asians. Simulations indicate that class-based preferences could boost low-income enrollment at selective institutions by 50-100% compared to race-based systems, though racial diversity gains are modest—typically increasing and shares by 1-2 percentage points less than explicit racial preferences—due to imperfect correlation between class and race. Empirical analyses, such as those reviewing admissions data from the post-Proposition 209, show class considerations enhanced socioeconomic diversity without the zero-sum racial trade-offs, but critics note implementation challenges like data accuracy for proxies (e.g., ZIP code poverty rates) and potential underrepresentation of racial minorities in absolute terms. Merit-based approaches emphasize objective criteria like standardized test scores (e.g., SAT/ACT), high school grade-point averages, and academic performance metrics, minimizing subjective holistic factors that can proxy for race. These methods align admissions with predictors of college success, as SAT scores correlate strongly with first-year GPA (r=0.46-0.54) and graduation rates across racial groups. In states banning race-based affirmative action, such as California after Proposition 209 in 1996, merit-focused holistic reviews combined with outreach increased overall undergraduate eligibility by 15-20% system-wide at the University of California, with Asian American enrollment rising from 37% to 43% at flagship campuses by 2010, while Black and Hispanic graduation rates improved due to reduced academic mismatch—defined as placing underprepared students in overly selective environments leading to higher dropout (e.g., Black completion rates at UC Berkeley rose from 31% pre-ban to 44% post-ban). Texas's Top 6 Percent Plan, enacted in 1997 as a race-neutral automatic admission for top high school performers, boosted Hispanic enrollment at the University of Texas at Austin from 13% to 20% by 2000 but favored integrated suburban schools, indirectly benefiting higher-achieving minorities while limiting total diversity gains compared to pre-ban levels. Studies of similar plans in Michigan and Florida post-bans confirm that strict merit criteria maintain or enhance academic quality—measured by average incoming SAT scores rising 50-100 points at selective schools—without the stigmatization or dependency risks of racial preferences, though they yield 20-50% lower underrepresented minority enrollment at elite institutions. Hybrid models combining class and merit elements, such as preferences for high-achieving low-income applicants, have shown promise in pilots; for instance, socioeconomic boosts in simulations for Harvard-like pools increased low-income admits by 2-3 times while preserving top-quartile thresholds, outperforming pure race-neutral holistic reviews in both equity and selectivity. Long-term data from ban states indicate these alternatives expand via and financial aid expansions—e.g., UC's post-209 outreach raised system-wide from 3% to 4% by 2020—while causal analyses link merit alignment to higher earnings and degree attainment for all groups, countering claims of net harm from diversity losses. Nonetheless, no single race- or class-neutral strategy fully replicates prior racial levels, prompting debates on whether empirical trade-offs favor broader opportunity over .

Evidence on Race-Neutral Strategies

Race-neutral strategies in college admissions include policies such as top-percent admission guarantees, preferences based on (SES), enhanced outreach to underrepresented high schools, and expanded financial aid programs, which aim to promote diversity without explicit consideration of applicants' or . These approaches have been implemented in states banning race-based affirmative action, such as and , following court rulings like (1996) and Proposition 209 (1996). Empirical analyses indicate that such strategies can modestly increase enrollment of underrepresented minorities (URMs), particularly Hispanics, but generally fall short of replicating the diversity gains from race-conscious policies, especially for Black students at selective institutions. Texas's Top 10 Percent Plan, enacted in , automatically admits residents graduating in the top decile of their high school class to the (UT Austin) or , leveraging segregation in many schools to indirectly boost enrollment. Post-implementation data show that URM enrollment at UT Austin rose from 13% in to about 20% by the early , with Hispanics comprising much of the gain due to concentrated high-performing students in majority-Hispanic schools; however, Black enrollment remained below pre-Hopwood levels, stabilizing at around 3-4% at the flagship campus. A 2024 NBER analysis found the plan increased overall access to flagship universities for eligible students but raised admission barriers for non-top-percent applicants, reducing enrollment of lower-ranked URMs and potentially contributing to lower retention rates among those admitted outside the guarantee. Students admitted under the plan exhibited higher freshman GPAs compared to pre-plan cohorts, suggesting reduced mismatch, though critics argue it incentivizes "gaming" by limiting course rigor in some districts. In , 209 prohibited race-based preferences in admissions starting in 1998, prompting adoption of race-neutral measures like SES-based outreach, guaranteed admission for top performers from under-resourced schools, and increased financial aid. Initial effects included sharp declines in URM enrollment at the , and UCLA— and Hispanic shares dropped by over 40% and 30%, respectively, in the late —but system-wide diversity partially recovered by the through holistic reviews emphasizing geography and family income. By , enrollment at medical schools reached 11% (up from a post-209 low of 5%), and Latinx shares in undergraduate programs climbed to 14-17% at select campuses, attributed to expanded pathways for low-SES applicants rather than racial proxies. However, selective campuses lagged, with URMs comprising only 15-20% at by 2020, compared to 40% under prior affirmative action, and studies link the ban to shifted academic trajectories among affected students, including lower attendance but higher graduation rates elsewhere in the system. Broader econometric evaluations confirm that race-neutral alternatives yield smaller diversity effects than affirmative action. A 2023 study across multiple systems estimated that top-percent plans boost URM freshman by 200-300 students per , versus 850 under race-based policies, while SES preferences add even less due to weaker with racial minorities in integrated areas. Chicago Public Schools data similarly show race-neutral proxies (e.g., neighborhood SES) achieve only partial substitution for racial quotas in assignments, with efficiency losses from indirect targeting. Post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), universities have explored expanded race-neutral tools like income-based aid and high school , but early implementations suggest persistent gaps in representation at schools, where top-percent plans prove least effective due to broader geographic . These findings underscore that while race-neutral strategies enhance access without constitutional risks, their causal impact on is limited by underlying socioeconomic and academic disparities, often requiring sustained in K-12 preparation to yield meaningful results.

References

  1. [1]
    CM-607 Affirmative Action | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ...
    Oct 1, 1981 · Affirmative action under the Guidelines is not a type of discrimination but a justification for a policy or practice based on race, sex, or ...
  2. [2]
    22.801 Definitions. - Acquisition.GOV
    Affirmative action program means a contractor's program that complies with Department of Labor regulations to ensure equal opportunity in employment to ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    Affirmative Action - CT.gov
    The phrase affirmative action was first used officially by the government in 1961 by President Kennedy in Executive Order 10952, which created the Equal ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  4. [4]
    2. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: HISTORY AND RATIONALE
    In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure equality of employment opportunity ...
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Does Affirmative Action Lead to “Mismatch”? A Review of the Evidence
    This disparity may occur because black students are generally given bigger admissions boosts, and thus the mismatch stemming from affirmative action was more ...
  6. [6]
    https://oxfordre.com/economics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-844
  7. [7]
    The Unresolved Problems of Reverse Discrimination
    The current widespread use of remedial affirmative action programs makes the legitimacy of reverse discrimination a pragmatic social concern.Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  8. [8]
    [PDF] When Affirmative Action May Be Reverse Discrimination
    The reasonableness test asks whether the affirma- tive action plan is "substantially related to the objectives of remedying past discrimination and correcting.
  9. [9]
    [PDF] 20-1199 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · After separate bench trials, both admissions programs were found permissible under the. Equal Protection Clause and this Court's precedents. In ...
  10. [10]
    Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday.
  11. [11]
    affirmative action | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior ...Employment · Education · Supreme Court Decisions...
  12. [12]
    Executive Order No. 11246 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ...
    It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons.Part I----Nondiscrimination... · Part Ii Nondiscrimination In... · Subpart B Contractors'...
  13. [13]
    Affirmative Action Brief: Understanding Its Impact - The Policy Circle
    Affirmative action refers to policies and measures implemented to address historical and ongoing discrimination and promote equal opportunities for ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Affirmative Action as a Strategy of Justice
    Others see affirmative action as an exercise of compensatory justice. It is an effort to rectify the wrongs of the past by giving blacks an additional ...
  15. [15]
    20th WCP: Rawlsian Affirmative Action: Compensatory Justice as ...
    Affirmative action is public policy designed to compensate the victims of injustice. (2) To be thus disadvantaged, in Rawls' scheme of things, is to have ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Equality, Affirmative Action and Diversity in the United States
    Meaningful compensatory justice in the United States requires that both the educational and employment environments reflect values and perspectives of all ...
  17. [17]
    The Case for Affirmative Action
    Jul 11, 2018 · Affirmative action was developed in the 1960s to address racial inequality and racial exclusion in American society. Colleges and universities ...
  18. [18]
    5 Reasons to Support Affirmative Action in College Admissions
    Oct 1, 2019 · 1. Students of color remain underrepresented on college campuses · 2. Prioritizing diversity benefits students of all races · 3. Affirmative ...
  19. [19]
    ASSESSING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION'S DIVERSITY RATIONALE
    Bakke made diversity in higher education a constitutionally acceptable rationale for affirmative action programs, the diversity rationale has received vehement ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Philosophical Perspectives on Affirmative Action
    Dworkin confi- dently asserts that an affirmative action program can be justified by the ideal "argument that a more equal society is 8: better society even if ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Understanding Affirmative Action - Equity & Inclusion
    The aim of our review is to introduce readers to the issues surrounding the policy and practice of affirmative action. In so doing, we highlight the major ways ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
  22. [22]
    [PDF] The Case Against Affirmative Action Louis P. Pojman In this essay I ...
    In this essay I set forth nine arguments against Strong Affirmative Action, which I define as preferential treatment, discriminating in favor of members of ...
  23. [23]
    Affirmative Action - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Affirmative action means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and cultureIn the Beginning · Equality's Rule · Diversity's Dominion · Diversity's Limit
  24. [24]
    Does Affirmative Action Lead to “Mismatch”? - Manhattan Institute
    Jul 7, 2022 · The research is mixed but generally consistent with a framework in which mismatch can be a problem, but is not always, depending on such factors ...
  25. [25]
    Affirmative Action around the World - Hoover Institution
    Thomas Sowell recently concluded a study of affirmative action programs around the world, from India and Malaysia to Nigeria and the United States.
  26. [26]
    “Affirmative Action”: A Worldwide Disaster - Commentary Magazine
    Dec 1, 1989 · Arguments for and against “affirmative action” have raged for about twenty years in the United States. Similar arguments have provoked controversy.
  27. [27]
    Affirmative Action and Fairness - Reformed Journal
    Sep 18, 2023 · The first problem with affirmative action is the obvious fact that it is an attempt to end discrimination with discrimination.
  28. [28]
    The Early Years | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy signs Executive Order 10925 prohibiting federal government contractors from discriminating on account of race and ...
  29. [29]
    EEOC History: The Law | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity ...
    DOL enforces Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, which imposes nondiscrimination and affirmative action requirements as a ...
  30. [30]
    Civil Rights Act (1964) | National Archives
    Feb 8, 2022 · Kennedy urged the nation to take action toward guaranteeing equal treatment of every American regardless of race.
  31. [31]
    Executive Order 10925—Establishing the President's Committee on ...
    The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their ...
  32. [32]
    Executive Order 11246—Equal Employment Opportunity
    It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons.
  33. [33]
    Timeline: A Heated History of Affirmative Action in America - KQED
    Jun 30, 2023 · President John F. Kennedy issues an executive order mandating that projects financed with federal funds "take affirmative action" to ensure ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke | Oyez
    A case in which the Court found that any racial quota for the purpose of admissions supported by a government entity violates the Equal Protection Clause of ...
  35. [35]
    Gratz v. Bollinger - Oyez
    Apr 1, 2003 · The admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  36. [36]
    Grutter v. Bollinger - Oyez
    A case in which the Court held that the use of race in the University of Michigan's Law School admissions decisions did not violate the Equal Protection ...
  37. [37]
    Fisher v. University of Texas | Oyez
    Fisher v. University of Texas involved a non-top 10% applicant denied admission. The question was whether race could be considered in admissions, and the court ...
  38. [38]
    Fisher v. University of Texas | Oyez
    Fisher sued UT for using race in admissions. The court ruled that the use of race was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, and did not violate the ...
  39. [39]
    A Timeline of Key Supreme Court Cases on Affirmative Action
    Mar 30, 2019 · The Supreme Court has weighed in on affirmative action several times. Here are some key cases through the decades.Marco Defunis Jr. V... · Gratz V. Bollinger · Fisher V. University Of...
  40. [40]
    Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard ...
    The Harvard admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion.
  41. [41]
    Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity
    Jan 21, 2025 · The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination. Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the ...
  42. [42]
    [PDF] A Tale of Two Supreme Court Rulings on Indian Affirmative Action*
    Mar 1, 2024 · India has implemented a complex affirmative action via a reservation system since the 1950s. In the historic case Indra Shawney vs. Union of ...
  43. [43]
    [PDF] affirmative action in india: restricted strategy space, complex ...
    Dec 4, 2023 · ABSTRACT. Since the 1950s, India has instituted an intricate affirmative action pro- gram through a meticulously designed reservation system. ...
  44. [44]
    50 Years of NEP: The Good, The Bad and The Future - REFSA
    Jul 15, 2021 · The National Economic Policy (NEP) was a set of social reconstruction and affirmative-action policies carried out in Malaysia between 1971 to 1990.
  45. [45]
    Time to act on Malaysia's affirmative action | East Asia Forum
    Aug 20, 2018 · The affirmative action program began as the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970, after the bloody race riots following the May 1969 elections ...
  46. [46]
    [PDF] History of Employment Equity in the Public Service and the Public ...
    Enacted in 1986, the aim of the Employment Equity Act (EEA) was to bring about positive labour market outcomes for four designated groups disadvantaged in ...
  47. [47]
    Overview of policy issues and background - Employment Equity Act ...
    Jun 2, 2022 · The Act is one way the Government of Canada promotes workplace equity in the federally regulated private sector and the federal public service.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Affirmative action in South Africa: an empirical assessment of the ...
    This section will start by briefly reviewing the data that will be used for this analysis, before describing a few post- apartheid labour market trends. This is ...
  49. [49]
    understanding affirmative action leadership in the south african ...
    South Africa's (SA) history of apartheid produced racial inequality that was entrenched for centuries. After 1994, the goal of the new government was to ...
  50. [50]
    Affirmative Action in Brazil | ReVista - Harvard University
    Oct 12, 2012 · The history of affirmative action in Brazil begins in December 2000. On that date, Anthony Garotinho, governor of Rio de Janeiro state, approved ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] The Case of Affirmative Action in Brazil - Cogitatio Press
    Mar 11, 2024 · By 2012, 70 public universities, primarily through local laws or university regulations, had adopted affirmative action programs, benefiting ...<|separator|>
  52. [52]
    [PDF] AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS A FORM OF SPECIAL MEASURES IN ...
    In Australia, affirmative action, a type of special measure, is race-based preferential treatment, often used for Indigenous Australians, and is a subset of ...
  53. [53]
    Affirmative measure for recruiting Aboriginal and Torres Strait ...
    Jun 29, 2022 · This affirmative measure allows a particular job in the Australian Public Service (APS) to be open only to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons.
  54. [54]
    [PDF] International perspectives on positive action measures
    Whilst European countries were more likely to talk about. 'positive action', the term 'affirmative action' was more commonly used in the non-European countries.
  55. [55]
    [PDF] The International Spread of Affirmative Action Policies
    In some cases, the phrase “affirmative action” has been directly adopted from its U.S. origins, while in other cases, new phrases such as “positive action” ( ...
  56. [56]
    Affirmative Action Policies to Increase Diversity Are Successful, but ...
    Feb 28, 2024 · Critics argue that these measures promote unfair preferences and reverse discrimination. But the two countries have taken starkly different ...
  57. [57]
    U.S. Supreme Court Ends Affirmative Action in Higher Education
    Aug 2, 2023 · On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision addressing the legality of race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions ...
  58. [58]
    Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke | 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
    Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke: Affirmative action programs that take race into account can continue to play a role in the college admissions ...
  59. [59]
    Minority-owned firms fear 'crisis' as affirmative action programs fall
    Nov 11, 2024 · About $76 billion went to minority-owned businesses through SBA programs, such as the 8(a) program.<|separator|>
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Do Minority- Owned Businesses Get a Fair Share of Government ...
    Based on their number, minority-owned firms received only 57 cents for every dollar they would be expected to receive.
  61. [61]
    [PDF] Does Affirmative Action Worsen Quality? Theory and Evidence to the ...
    Oct 23, 2024 · Affirmative action improves the representation of women and minorities, but critics worry that it is at odds with meritocracy.Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
  62. [62]
    Quotas and Consequences: A Transnational Re-evaluation
    This chapter argues that the doctrinal distinction between quotas and affirmative action is best understood as reflecting a concern about the balkanizing ...<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    FAQ on Affirmative Action, Diversity, and Quotas
    Quotas are mandatory and externally imposed. Remember, UCLA has voluntarily established goals. Sometimes, goals and quotas are misrepresented as being ...
  64. [64]
    Goals and Quotas Are Not the Same | Fred L. Pincus
    Aug 29, 2012 · Opponents of affirmative action general are critical of both goals and quotas that are associated with affirmative action.
  65. [65]
    6. Office of Federal Contract Compliance - Clinton White House
    Specifically, OFCCP may require goals for hiring and promoting women and minorities as part of the affirmative action program (AAP) which contractors are ...
  66. [66]
    Philadelphia Plan | Encyclopedia.com
    The plan required Philadelphia government contractors in six construction trades to set goals and timetables for the hiring of minority workers.
  67. [67]
    [PDF] The Legality of the "Revised Philadelphia Plan"
    affirmative action program submitted with his bid, set specific goals of minority manpower utilization which meet the definite standard included in the ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] The Philadelphia Plan, the AFL-CIO, and the Politics of Race Hiring
    Under these programs, the OFCC required contractors to determine reasonable goals for minority hiring based on the percentages of skilled minority workers ...
  69. [69]
    5 Key Affirmative Action Outreach Resources (And What to Record)
    Jun 2, 2023 · Examples of reports for community and diversity outreach, candidate referrals, VEVRAA job listings, and more. Download the full ebook today.
  70. [70]
    What are some real-life examples where affirmative action ... - Quora
    Jul 15, 2025 · What is a good affirmative action example? The USA Federal TRIO Programs (TRIO) are Federal outreach and student services programs designed ...
  71. [71]
    Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
    The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) immediately cease holding federal contractors responsible for taking affirmative action or allowing ...About Us · Contact Us · OFCCP Public Intake Form · Section 503Missing: timetables | Show results with:timetables
  72. [72]
    How the 3 “I”s Sow Chaos in Your Affirmative Action Data - Affirmity
    Sep 27, 2023 · In this article, we look at three major types of data errors we've identified—the 3 “I”s—and recommend how to maintain integrity and reduce risk ...
  73. [73]
    What You Need to Know About the OFCCP: Part 1 – 2023 Year in ...
    Mar 12, 2024 · In 2023, the OFCCP demonstrated renewed vigor in audits, recovering $17.3 million from federal contractors for alleged hiring and compensation discrimination.
  74. [74]
    Changes and Challenges Relating to Affirmative Action Obligations ...
    Jan 27, 2023 · The changes discussed below indicate more aggressive enforcement actions are intended. Consequently, federal contractors must determine how they ...Missing: United | Show results with:United
  75. [75]
    Affirmative action ruling sparks concerns about overreach
    Aug 7, 2023 · The Supreme Court ruling sent institutions scrambling to ensure compliance. Some say it's also enabled politically motivated overreach.
  76. [76]
    Race-Conscious Admissions and Equal Protection in Higher ...
    Apr 19, 2024 · ED has ventured into affirmative action issues as well, opening Title VI investigations into the admissions decisions at several prominent ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    Colleges brace for lawsuits enforcing affirmative action ban
    Sep 19, 2024 · The affirmative action foe threatened to sue three colleges for allegedly defying the Supreme Court's race-conscious admissions ban.
  78. [78]
    The Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Ruling: A Shift in How ...
    Aug 9, 2023 · The letter highlights how some state enforcement agencies are interpreting the college affirmative action decisions as empowering them to ...
  79. [79]
    [PDF] Does Affirmative Action Work? Evaluating India's Quota System
    Oct 15, 2020 · One of the most common proposed solutions to such problems is the introduction of quotas or other preferential practices in educational ...
  80. [80]
    Opinion | A push for equality that no one wants anymore
    Sep 4, 2025 · Malaysians are rejecting a decades-old affirmative action program as discriminatory and corrupt.
  81. [81]
    [PDF] MALAYSIA'S PREFERENCE LAWS FOR MALAYS AS A VIOLATION ...
    Mar 8, 2022 · In line with international law, Malaysia should impose limits on its affirmative action programs to avoid abuse. Malaysia has already undertaken.
  82. [82]
    The impact of employment quotas on the economic lives of ...
    In this paper, I study the impact of employment-based affirmative action policies on the economic lives of disadvantaged minorities in India.Missing: global | Show results with:global
  83. [83]
    An Early Look at Diversity Post–Affirmative Action - Inside Higher Ed
    Sep 6, 2024 · Colleges are slowly releasing demographic data for the Class of 2028, giving a glimpse of the Supreme Court ruling's impact on racial diversity.
  84. [84]
    [PDF] The Effect of Affirmative Action Bans on College Enrollment
    Sep 1, 2024 · 6Bleemer (2022) shows that white and Asian enrollments proportionally increased following California's AA ban. 7Antman et al. (2024) document ...
  85. [85]
    [PDF] The Impact of Affirmative Action on the Employment of Minorities and ...
    Mar 3, 2015 · Specifically, the share of black and Native American women and men grew more on average at federal contractors subject to affirmative action ...
  86. [86]
    [PDF] The economic impact of affirmative action in the US Harry J. Holzer ...
    The arguments above suggest very different views on the extent to which affirmative action will lead to greater equity across race and gender groups, and on ...
  87. [87]
    [PDF] A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action - Stanford Law Review
    A growing body of evidence suggests that students who attend schools where they are at a significant academic disadvantage suffer a variety of ill effects, from ...
  88. [88]
    [PDF] Mismatch and Bar Passage: A School-Specific Analysis
    2) When we control for mismatch effects and LSAT scores, racial deficits in bar passage rates substantially shrink. When we add measures of undergraduate grades ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] Mismatch and Bar Passage: A School-Specific Analysis - Law.com
    His findings implied that the mismatch effect on bar passage was not only real, but fairly large – equivalent to subtracting about 120 points from a student's ...
  90. [90]
    The Downside of Affirmative Action: Academic Mismatch - AEI
    Black and Hispanic students at the University of Michigan earn lower GPAs than whites or Asians, and are much more likely to be on academic probation.
  91. [91]
    Are Minority Students Harmed by Affirmative Action? | Brookings
    Mar 7, 2013 · The mismatch hypothesis predicts that URM students with weak qualifications will be more likely to graduate, on average, from a less selective ...
  92. [92]
    Affirmative action “mismatch” theory isn't supported by credible ...
    Dec 10, 2015 · Mismatch is possible in theory, but it presents an empirical question as to whether selective colleges admit students who would be better off at less ...
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch? A New Test and Evidence
    We argue that once we take into account the students' rational enrollment decisions, mismatch in the sense that the intended beneficiary of affirmative action ...
  94. [94]
    [PDF] Affirmative Action, MISMATCH, AND ECONOMIC MOBILITY AFTER ...
    Following these applicants into the labor market, I find that Prop 209 caused URM UC applicants to earn 5% lower average annual wages between ages 24 and 34, ...<|separator|>
  95. [95]
    [PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE LONG-RUN IMPACTS OF ...
    Results suggest that banning affirmative action results in a decline in URM women's college degree completion, earnings, and employment relative to non-Hispanic ...
  96. [96]
    Long-Term Effects of Affirmative Action Bans | NBER
    Dec 1, 2024 · Earnings in states with bans were 2.6 percent higher for Black men, 3.3 percent higher for White women, 4.2 percent lower for Black women, and ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] Affirmative Action - Urban Institute
    In this paper we review the research evidence on the effects of Affirmative Action in employment, university admissions and government procurement.
  98. [98]
    [PDF] Is Affirmative Action in Employment Still Effective in the 21st Century?
    The study finds that the affirmative action policy is ineffective in the 21st century, with no effect on employment shares or hiring.
  99. [99]
    [PDF] the ironies of affirmative action: empirical analyses of uc students
    Affirmative action leads to racial divisions. Student respondents are asked whether affirmative action increases racial resentments and creates racial division.
  100. [100]
    India's Ethnic Quotas Are a Cautionary Tale
    Jan 25, 2019 · Seven decades after the country first embraced caste-based quotas in education and government jobs, they have become permanent entitlements ...Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
  101. [101]
    [PDF] Sander, the Mismatch Theory, and Affirmative Action
    This Article provides an efficient synthesis of the research to date on a controversial topic, Professor Richard Sander's mismatch theory,.
  102. [102]
    Richard Sander: Affirmative Action, Mismatch Theory, & Academic ...
    Mar 3, 2022 · White students who were mismatched did as badly as mismatched Black students. Race just kind of fell out of the analysis. But because race was ...
  103. [103]
    "The Mismatch Myth in American Higher Education: A Synthesis of ...
    This paper presents a comprehensive examination of the empirical literature testing the academic mismatch hypothesis as it applies to affirmative action and ...
  104. [104]
    [PDF] Are Affirmative Action Hires Less Qualified? Evidence from ...
    Our results show some evidence of lower educational qualifications among blacks and Hispanics hired under Affirmative Action, but not among white women. ...
  105. [105]
    President Trump Ends Affirmative Action Requirements for ...
    Jan 23, 2025 · President Donald Trump has eliminated the requirement for federal contractors to maintain affirmative action programs.
  106. [106]
    Post-SFFA v. Harvard & UNC Decision Resources: Admissions and ...
    ​​​​In June 2023, the Supreme Court struck down the use of race in college admissions in the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard University and ...Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
  107. [107]
    Biden Administration Outlines How Colleges Can Pursue Racial ...
    Aug 14, 2023 · The Biden administration on Monday issued informal guidance on the US Supreme Court's June decision striking down affirmative action in admissions.
  108. [108]
    Biden-Harris Administration Outlines Strategies to Increase Diversity ...
    Sep 28, 2023 · This new report is one of several swift actions taken by the Biden-Harris Administration to respond to the Court's decision in SFFA.
  109. [109]
    ACLU Comment on President Biden's Response to the Supreme ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · “President Biden's caution against colleges abandoning their commitment to diversity is among the most critical points we must all reinforce ...
  110. [110]
    Impact of the SFFA v. Harvard Decision and Recent DOE/OCR “Dear ...
    The 2023 Guidance describes existing practices that can be legally employed post SFFA to achieve diverse student bodies.Missing: developments | Show results with:developments
  111. [111]
    https://apnews.com/article/affirmative-action-college-admissions-race-princeton-8d3c44eb6b01d0689f7c109041735aec
  112. [112]
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/black-student-enrollment-declines-harvard-163757433.html
  113. [113]
    What Happened to Enrollment at Top Colleges After Affirmative ...
    Jan 15, 2025 · In 2024, 17 of these 59 colleges experienced their largest drops in Black enrollment in 14 years, while only three had their largest gains.
  114. [114]
    College Sees Small Drops in Black, Hispanic Enrollment After ...
    Aug 19, 2025 · College Sees Small Drops in Black, Hispanic Enrollment After Affirmative Action Ban. The Common Data Set for 2024–25, UChicago's first since ...
  115. [115]
    Impact of SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling on Employers
    Sep 6, 2023 · The Supreme Court has previously held that Title VII does not prohibit race- or sex-based affirmative action plans in the workplace, so long as ...
  116. [116]
    Corporate DEI Policies Face Scrutiny Following SCOTUS Affirmative ...
    The U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in higher education in June 2023, effectively foreclosing the consideration of race in and ...<|separator|>
  117. [117]
    Implications for Private Employers of the Supreme Court's Harvard ...
    Overall, the Harvard decision has injected a new element of uncertainty into the future of Title VII and Section 1981 litigation, as well as best practices for ...<|separator|>
  118. [118]
    How countries around the world handle affirmative action in ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · France, like Britain, does not permit “positive discrimination.” Policies meant to foster racial equality must focus on interrelated criteria ...
  119. [119]
    Affirmative action policies to remedy ethnic minority disadvantage in ...
    Abstract. Throughout Western Europe the children of immigrants continue to experience major ethnic penalties in the labour market in comparison with their peers ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Overview of Diversity Imbalance on Boards of European and ...
    Mar 5, 2025 · The quota was 40% for listed companies (to be reached by 1 January 2008) and state-owned enterprises (to be reached by 1 January 2008).
  121. [121]
    a comparative field experiment on racial discrimination in Europe
    Mar 25, 2023 · We present the first large-scale comparative field experiment on appearance-based racial discrimination in hiring conducted in Europe.
  122. [122]
    [PDF] Affirmative action in employment - ILO Research Repository
    Affirmative action is an extension of the notion of equality of opportunity and non-discrimination. It aims to overcome the effects of past discrimi-.
  123. [123]
    [PDF] DISCRIMINATION AND EQUALITY AT WORK IN INTERNATIONAL ...
    ”153 Affirmative action, as clearly affirmed by the ILO, is compatible with international labor law.154 In particular, affirmative action may become a ...
  124. [124]
    [PDF] A/79/316 - General Assembly - the United Nations
    Aug 22, 2024 · Special measures, which are often referred to as “affirmative action”,. “affirmative measures” or “positive measures”, are the provision of ...
  125. [125]
    Affirmative Action and Article 4 of the Women's Convention.
    Affirmative action is an essential instrument for moving forward towards full equality, it is enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of ...
  126. [126]
    Reservations In India, Caste-Based Reservation System - PWOnlyIAS
    Reservation Percentage in India for SC/ST/OBC ; Scheduled Castes (SC), 15% ; Scheduled Tribes (ST), 7.5% ; Other Backward Classes (OBC), 27% ; Economically Weaker ...
  127. [127]
    FACTBOX-The controversy over caste-based quotas in India - Reuters
    Jun 4, 2007 · - Twenty-two percent of seats in the lower house of parliament and state legislatures are reserved for Scheduled Castes and tribal groups. - A ...
  128. [128]
    [PDF] Reservation System in India: A Comparative Study of ...
    The findings indicate that while reservations have improved access to education and government jobs, concerns over overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and ...
  129. [129]
    Understanding the Reservation/Quota System
    Aug 8, 2024 · The Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Quota is a 10% quota for those who meet a certain weak economic criteria, and are not a scheduled caste ...
  130. [130]
    [PDF] Impact of Reservation on Admissions to Higher Education in India
    My aim in this article is to compile and analyse empirical evidence on the consequences of Indian positive discrimination policies in the same important sphere.
  131. [131]
    [PDF] Working Paper DID RESERVATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION ...
    This paper estimates the impact of education reservation policy implemented in 2008 in India for. Other Backward Castes (OBCs) on their employment.
  132. [132]
    [PDF] a quantitative analysis of reservation policies in india's education ...
    Aug 1, 2024 · To study the background of the reservation system in India. 2. To analyse the impact of reservation in the education and employment sector.
  133. [133]
    [PDF] impacts of caste based reservation system on the lives of scheduled
    Feb 21, 2021 · This increase in percentage of reservation quotas resulted in mass protests and riots throughout India in 1990. The protests included ...
  134. [134]
    Multicultural Policies in Malaysia: Challenges, Successes, and the ...
    Jun 1, 2024 · Previously, the success of NEP policies has been measured quantitatively. For example, the NEP set 30 percent Bumiputera equity ownership as a ...
  135. [135]
    After 50 Years: Revisiting Affirmative Action Policies in Malaysia
    Feb 28, 2025 · The NEP spanned from 1971 to 1990 and consisted of a two-pronged approach – to eradicate poverty and, more infamously, to restructure society by ...
  136. [136]
    Malaysia's Bumiputera Transformation 2035 Needs Rigour, Fairness ...
    Jan 31, 2025 · The Anwar administration's PuTERA35 transformation plan for the next decade underscores the prevailing socioeconomic gaps in the Bumiputera community.
  137. [137]
    [PDF] The impact of affirmative action and equity regulations on Malaysia's ...
    This paper studies affirmative action policies in Malaysia, focusing on a specific policy in the private sector. In particular, I examine the impact of a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  138. [138]
    Affirmative Action at 50 in Malaysia - Tablet Magazine
    May 25, 2021 · This year marks the 50th anniversary of the most important public policy ever implemented in Malaysia, the New Economic Policy (NEP).
  139. [139]
    Can Malaysia's public universities move away from racial quotas?
    May 8, 2024 · While boosting Bumiputera enrolment, Malaysia's racial quotas in universities face criticism for hindering meritocracy and causing brain drain.
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Ethnicity, Education and the Economics of Brain Drain in Malaysia
    The push factors that can be used to explain migration and the brain drain in Malaysia include market distortions, institutionalised discrimination (bumiputera ...
  141. [141]
    Affirmative action failures: Malaysia's warning for South Africa
    Apr 18, 2023 · Affirmative action in Malaysia has failed to uplift the poor – and South Africa is now experiencing the consequences for the same mistake.<|control11|><|separator|>
  142. [142]
    South Africa seeks to reform faltering Black empowerment system
    Sep 23, 2024 · The empowerment law enacted in 2003 created a scorecard system that encourages companies to hire and promote Black people by offering them tax ...
  143. [143]
    Affirmative action policies and the evolution of post-apartheid South ...
    Affirmative action legislation was enacted with a lag, first targeting employment equity and skills development in 1998 and then more extensive 'black economic ...
  144. [144]
    Race, power and money in South Africa - The Economist
    Aug 12, 2025 · Today BEE is a form of gamified affirmative action. Firms are given points based on meeting criteria for the portion of the firm owned by black ...
  145. [145]
    From Policy to Practice: Africa's Affirmative Action Milestones
    Jul 8, 2024 · The concept of affirmative action in Africa has its roots in the early post-independence era, where the need to redress colonial legacies.
  146. [146]
    [PDF] the origins of affirmative action in higher education around the world
    Beyond the United States, global discourses around anti-racism and nondiscrimination facilitate the adoption of affirmative action in other national ...Missing: excluding | Show results with:excluding
  147. [147]
    Seeing Race Like a State: Higher Education Affirmative Action ...
    Jul 28, 2023 · In 2022, a national survey showed that half of the Brazilian population approved of racial quotas at public universities (Saldaña 2022).
  148. [148]
    Racial inequality in Latin America - Oxford Academic
    Mar 3, 2025 · This study examines socioeconomic inequality in Latin America through the lens of race and ethnicity. Its primary source is census data.
  149. [149]
    [PDF] Racial and Ethnic Inequality in Latin America - IDB Publications
    Black and indigenous populations and those with darker skin experience educational, income, and occupational disadvantages in Latin America. Inequality varies ...
  150. [150]
    [PDF] Emergence of an Organized Politics of Race in Latin America
    The third part of the chapter briefly analyzes two major experiences of race-based public policies: university admissions quotas in Brazil and reserved seats ...
  151. [151]
    Affirmative Action Under the Fourteenth Amendment - FindLaw
    Affirmative action is the practice of giving preferential treatment to members of historically disadvantaged groups. A common example is an institution of ...Missing: definitions | Show results with:definitions
  152. [152]
    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) | Wex | US Law
    Regents of the University of California v. Bakke is a 1978 Supreme Court case which held that a university's admissions criteria which used race as a definite ...
  153. [153]
    The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases ...
    In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled unconstitutional a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process, ...
  154. [154]
    Grutter v. Bollinger | 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
    The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy of a public educational institution does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the ...
  155. [155]
    GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER - Law.Cornell.Edu
    The District Court found the Law School's use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell's opinion in ...
  156. [156]
    Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin | 579 U.S. ___ (2016)
    Jun 23, 2016 · The Supreme Court ruled that a race-conscious admissions program is lawful if it furthers diversity for educational benefits, and race-neutral ...
  157. [157]
    Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: A Timeline and Resources
    In its second ruling in 2016, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to uphold the university's admissions policy. On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court voided the lower ...
  158. [158]
    Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard FAQ: Navigating the ...
    Dec 12, 2023 · In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The landmark ruling in Students for ...
  159. [159]
    International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial ...
    4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection ...Missing: temporary | Show results with:temporary
  160. [160]
    Ricci v. DeStefano | 557 U.S. 557 (2009)
    Some firefighters argued the tests should be discarded because the results showed the tests to be discriminatory. They threatened a discrimination lawsuit if ...
  161. [161]
    What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work
    The EEOC does not require a higher showing of proof for so-called “reverse” discrimination claims.[6] The EEOC's position is that there is no such thing as ...
  162. [162]
    [PDF] Asian American Discrimination in Harvard Admissions
    Using data made public in the SFFA v. Harvard case, we study discrimination using observational data in an environment where these two concerns are mitigated: ...
  163. [163]
    Asian American Discrimination at Harvard –Data Analysis |
    Apr 21, 2020 · Using data made public in the SFFA v. Harvard case, we estimate discrimination in a setting where this concern is mitigated. Namely, we show ...
  164. [164]
    The Stigma of Affirmative Action: A Stereotyping-Based Theory and ...
    We propose that the negative effect of AAPs on others' evaluations of targets' performance is driven by perceptions of incompetence and low warmth.
  165. [165]
    [PDF] THE STIGMA OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A STEREOTYPING
    Research on the consequences of competence and warmth stereotypes has focused largely on emotions (e.g., contempt) and behaviors. (e.g., harassment) (Cuddy et ...
  166. [166]
    A comparison of the other-directed stigmatization produced by legal ...
    Recent studies have begun to show that the stigma of incompetence sometimes directed toward the beneficiaries of affirmative action may be significantly reduced ...
  167. [167]
    Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to ...
    Jul 10, 2014 · Two legal experts make the explosive argument that affirmative action hurts minority students' educational and career chances—and that liberals ...
  168. [168]
    Affirmative Action: The Price of Preference - What So Proudly We Hail
    Affirmative action, practices that, in the name of justice and fairness, give one form or another of preferential treatment to blacks.
  169. [169]
    Shelby Steele takes on racism, imperialism, affirmative action
    Sep 26, 2006 · Affirmative action, Steele argued, is a system that sets black people up for failure by putting on them on a higher level than they ought to be, ...
  170. [170]
    'Affirmative action policies created dependency culture'
    Nov 26, 2014 · KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia's affirmative action policies in the past 40 years have created a culture of dependency, corruption and racial envy, ...Missing: impacts | Show results with:impacts
  171. [171]
    18 Affirmative Action Pros and Cons (2025)
    May 3, 2023 · By lowering barriers to entry for select groups, affirmative action can create a culture of dependency upon the 'leg up' rather than encouraging ...Missing: impacts | Show results with:impacts
  172. [172]
    Shelby Steele: Affirmative Action Doesn't Solve the Real Problem
    Aug 12, 2009 · Steele continues: Today's “black” problem is underdevelopment, not discrimination. Success in modernity will demand profound cultural changes— ...
  173. [173]
    The Myth of Victimization – Mark Pulliam - Law & Liberty
    Jun 9, 2025 · Decades of black upward mobility were upended by quota-driven affirmative action and welfare programs since the 1970s. ... victimhood that fuels ...
  174. [174]
    The Case Against Affirmative Action - STANFORD magazine
    For the past quarter of a century, Stanford has been discriminating in favor of racial minorities in admissions, hiring, tenure, contracting and financial aid.Missing: principles | Show results with:principles
  175. [175]
    Americans for Meritocracy - Manhattan Institute
    May 30, 2024 · In sum, our findings show that when affirmative action programs threaten opportunities for Asians (as opposed to whites), most Americans ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  176. [176]
    'This is not a normal court': Biden blasts affirmative action ruling
    Jun 29, 2023 · President Joe Biden slammed the Supreme Court's ruling undercutting affirmative action programs in higher education during a speech at the White House on ...
  177. [177]
    Supreme Court ends affirmative action, drawing criticism from Biden ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · 'A severe disappointment': Biden on decision​​ Biden said he strongly disagrees with the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision, saying that ...<|separator|>
  178. [178]
    Trump and Biden Had Very Different Responses to Affirmative ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · Trump, however, described the decision as a restoration of equity in U.S. higher education. Joe Biden on affirmative action ruling. U.S. ...
  179. [179]
    Affirmative action ruling sharply divides Dems, GOP - The Hill
    Jun 29, 2023 · Thursday's extraordinary Supreme Court decision to banish race as a factor in college admissions is sharply dividing the parties on Capitol Hill.
  180. [180]
    Post-Affirmative Action, Views on Admissions Differ by Race
    Jan 16, 2024 · National adults largely see it as mostly a good thing at 68%, with 32% seeing it as mostly a bad thing. Among racial groups, 63% of Asian, 52% ...
  181. [181]
    [PDF] Post-Affirmative Action, Views on Admissions Differ by Race
    May 1, 2024 · WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A Gallup Center on Black Voices survey finds that about two in three Americans (68%) say the Supreme Court's June 2023 ...<|separator|>
  182. [182]
    How Americans view affirmative action in college admissions, hiring
    Jun 16, 2023 · Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren't sure. By ...
  183. [183]
    https://theweek.com/news/society/958504/pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action
  184. [184]
    Affirmative Action and Public Opinion - Americas Quarterly
    The survey revealed that a majority of respondents supported policies that would remove barriers to inequality, such as race-based affirmative action.
  185. [185]
    Opinion | I Believe in Campus Diversity. That's Why I Helped End ...
    Mar 29, 2025 · Because of Trump's attacks, my interest in defending class-based affirmative action is now aligned with those of civil rights leaders. Still, ...
  186. [186]
    In Defense of Class-Based Affirmative Action
    May 31, 2013 · Richard D. Kahlenberg ... I've long been a proponent of affirmative action based on economic disadvantage and have argued that a U.S. Supreme ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  187. [187]
    Gauging the feasibility of class-based affirmative action
    Jan 8, 2024 · The Brookings study found that while considering class in admissions decisions would be a more efficient diversity booster than some leading ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  188. [188]
    Affirmative action and its race-neutral alternatives - ScienceDirect
    Top percent policies and holistic review have negligible effects on lower-income enrollment, while race-based affirmative action modestly increased enrollment ...
  189. [189]
    [PDF] Class-Based Affirmative Action Assessing a New Approach ... - ERIC
    Campus diversity is an important outcome, but this focus tends to conflate college enrollment (i.e., a student‟s decision to matriculate) with college ...
  190. [190]
    Here's what happened when affirmative action ended in California
    Jun 30, 2023 · The ban has in fact acted as a deterrent to prospective Black and Latino students, Bleemer said. His study found that high-performing minority ...
  191. [191]
    [PDF] CSHE.10.2020 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, MISMATCH, AND ...
    I find little evidence that university affirmative action narrowed the Black- white economic mobility gap, which has received particular attention (Dobbie and ...
  192. [192]
    Race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action in college admissions
    Jun 29, 2023 · This collection of research on alternatives to race-based affirmative action in college admissions, originally published in May 2023, has been updatedMissing: employment | Show results with:employment
  193. [193]
    With race-based admissions no longer an option, states may imitate ...
    Jun 29, 2023 · To curb that decline, Texas lawmakers created a “race-neutral” program known as The Top 10% Plan, aimed at giving a broader group of Texas ...
  194. [194]
    Why “Percent Plans” for University Admissions Aren't a Colorblind ...
    Mar 20, 2025 · Texas's top 10% law did increase black and Hispanic enrollment at the state flagships, but it did not fully restore black and Hispanic ...Missing: Michigan | Show results with:Michigan
  195. [195]
    Research and Analyses on the Impact of Proposition 209 in California
    Findings show that affirmative action bans have led to the greatest reductions in science-related fields of engineering, the natural sciences, and the social ...
  196. [196]
    The Future of College Admissions without Affirmative Action
    Jun 23, 2023 · Research shows no single race-neutral admissions policy would produce current levels of racial and ethnic diversity on its own.
  197. [197]
    The Efficiency of Race-Neutral Alternatives to Race-Based ...
    Abstract. Several K-12 and university systems have adopted race-neutral affirmative action in place of race-based alternatives.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  198. [198]
    Effects of Texas' Top Ten Percent College Admissions Plan | NBER
    Aug 1, 2024 · This is in part because the Top Ten Percent Plan raises the admissions standards at flagship schools for students who are not admitted under it; ...
  199. [199]
    [PDF] Affirmative Action and Its Race-Neutral Alternatives
    As affirmative action loses political feasibility, many universities have implemented race-neutral alternatives like top percent policies and holistic review ...
  200. [200]
    [PDF] Texas Top Ten Percent Plan: How It Works, What Are Its Limits, and ...
    Student outcomes were analyzed under three regimes: a color-н‐conscious approach (authors use color-н‐sighted) that uses traditional affirmative action ...
  201. [201]
    The Impact of the Texas Top 10 Percent Law on College Enrollment
    We find that the top 10 percent law affects flagship enrollment of Hispanic students eligible for the admission guarantee, as well as rank-eligible graduates.
  202. [202]
    Do Bans on Affirmative Action Hurt Minority Students? Evidence ...
    I find that the change from affirmative action to the Top 10% Plan in Texas decreased both retention and graduation rates of lower-ranked minority students.Missing: enrollment outcomes
  203. [203]
    Proposition 209 and the Hidden Diversity Ecosystem
    Oct 22, 2024 · Proposition 209 caused an immediate and significant drop in the racial diversity of the student bodies at selective campuses of the University ...
  204. [204]
    Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility After ...
    Aug 20, 2020 · Proposition 209 banned race-based affirmative action at California public universities in 1998. This study analyzes Prop 209's impact on student outcomes.<|separator|>
  205. [205]
    Impact of California Proposition 209 on Racial/Ethnic Diversity of ...
    The proportion of Latinx matriculants in California's medical schools increased from 11 percent (1990) to 14 percent (2019) with a peak of 17 percent in 2016.Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
  206. [206]
    Affirmative Action: How Will Court Ruling Affect Medical School ...
    Jul 3, 2023 · While the percentage of Black students in California medical schools hit a low of 5% after Proposition 209, it climbed to 11% by 2019. And the ...
  207. [207]
    Will the Ban on Affirmative Action Hurt Diversity? Look to California
    Dec 4, 2023 · 209 not only reduced the number of underrepresented minority group members at California's top public universities, but it trickled down to the ...
  208. [208]
    Impact from affirmative action decision could be felt for years to come
    Oct 7, 2024 · The Supreme Court's ban on affirmative action in admissions has already led to a dramatic decline in the number of minority students in their incoming class.
  209. [209]
    [PDF] The Efficiency of Race-Neutral Alternatives to Race-Based ...
    An SES-based affirmative action plan increases minority representation if there are more minorities among the students it advantages than among the students ...
  210. [210]
    Alternative Action After SFFA | Stanford Law Review
    May 6, 2024 · Professor Sonja Starr assesses the constitutional implications of school-admissions policies that use race-neutral means to achieve race-related ends.Missing: strategies | Show results with:strategies
  211. [211]
    Is There a “Workable” Race-Neutral Alternative to Affirmative Action ...
    This paper shows that replacing traditional affirmative action with a system that uses an applicant's predicted likelihood of being an underrepresented racial ...