Affirmative Action

1. Affirmative Action

2. DISCLAIMER This presentation does not imply any racial agenda or discrimination. The views that are going to be presented in this presentation are solely to show each side of the argument.

3. Overview • Definition of Affirmative Action • History of Affirmative Action • Opposing views of Affirmative Action • Conclusion • Class Discussion

4. Definition of Affirmative Action Specific actions in recruitment, hiring, upgrading and other areas designed and taken for the purpose of eliminating the present effects of past discrimination, or to prevent discrimination. (www.uri.edu)

5. March 27, 2001 U of Michigan Law School A different judge drew an opposite conclusion, invalidating the law school’s policy and ruling that “intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity.” May 14, 2001 – Decision Reversed Timeline July 2, 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson. Prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or natural origin June 28, 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke This case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. (Reverse Discrimination) November 3, 1997 Proposition 209 in California State ban on all forms of Affirmative Action. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 June 23, 2003 Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action in University Admissions Upholds the U of M Law School’s policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered… it furthers “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” (5-4) - Ruled (6-3) that U of M’s undergraduate admissions program (point system) had to be modified. July 19, 1995 White House Guidelines on Affirmative Action Called for the elimination of any program that “a) creates a quota; b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals, c) creates reverse discrimination; or d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved. December 13, 2000 U of Michigan undergrad Affirmative Action policy Federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at U of M was constitutional.

6. Current System • Do you believe in affirmative action and how it is currently enforced in higher education? • Enrollment in college: • White: 48% (18-21 yrs.) • African Americans: 11% (18-21 yrs.) • Hispanics: 10% (18-21yrs.)

7. Different States, Different Laws • California • “Effective January 1, 1997, the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for ‘admissions in exception’ to UC-eligibility requirements.” - OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY • Michigan • Supreme court ruled that race can be one of many factors considered… it furthers “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”.

8. Is CU’s policy on Affirmative Action making a positive change?CU Boulder Enrollment Fall 2002

9. Affirmative Action at CU • "The only numeric formula in the admissions process that is used at CU-Boulder is … calculated only on the basis of high grade-point average or rank and SAT or ACT test scores, and does not take any personal attributes of a student into account.”- Richard L. Byyny

10. Class Discussion: • Is there a need for affirmative action? • How would you change affirmative action to make it more effective? • Fund high school's differently • Keep affirmative action laws at the state level • Nationalize affirmative action laws

11. Sources • http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/SP-1.html • http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html#summary • http://www.colorado.edu/news/affirmativeaction/faq.html • http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html