igned to ensure good-faith efforts in recruiting qualified members of designated groups into teaching, professions, industry and other respected and well-paid positions in American society (Beer, 1987, p. 63). However, as time passed, it has come to mean something else. Due to a series of bureaucratic and legal decisions largely invisible to the public, affirmative action has come to mean a series of quotas (sometimes referred to as "goals" or "timetables") that benefit certain groups at the expense of others (p. 63).
Such interpretations are in direct contrast with the Civil Rights Act which explicitly stated:
"Nothing contained in this Title shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or any group because of race, color, religion, sex or national status of any such individual on account of any imbalance which may exist with respect to the total or percentage of persons of race employed by any employer (Beer, 1987, p. 63).
This same message was repeated by Hubert Humphrey in his defense of the bill when he said that it would not require an employer to achieve racial balance by giving preferential treatment. In July, 1986, however, the Supreme Court declared that preferential treatment was constitutional. Further, in March 1987, the Court added that preference may be shown for less qualified women and minorities over white males.
...