ms that also included incentives for women (Dimeo, 1992, p. 54). While some of these programs were race-neutral, others were primarily race-conscious, and still others were mixtures of policies based on local politics, problems, and issues. During the early 1980s, the courts upheld the most minority-preference programs, but by 1987, set-aside programs at the state and local levels were being struck down by the courts (Dimeo, 1992, p. 54).
Legal Challenges to Minority Preference Contract Programs
The first successful challenge to a major minority-preference program was City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (Dimeo, 1992, p. 55). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 1989 that local governments must justify the need for set-aside programs. The Supreme Court held that a City of Richmond program setting aside 30 percent of all public contracts for minority businesses violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. At the heart of this Supreme Court decision is the "strict scrutiny" standard used to review state and local laws that create contract preferences for minorities. That standard had been used for many years to invalidate laws and practices that favored whites. In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that a remedy using a racial classification only could be used if there was proof that racial discrimination in public contracting existed. In the Richmond case, however, the Supreme Court found that the city showed no evidence that qualified minority contractors have been passed over for city contracts or subcontracts, either as a group or in any individual case.
After the Richmond v. Croson ruling, many jurisdictions rushed to do away with minority preference programs altogether, while some jurisdictions that had set-aside programs replaced them with goal-oriented programs (Dimeo, 1992, p. 55). A few jurisdictions, such as Washington, DC, however, neither analyzed their programs nor mad...