The civil rights revolution enshrined into law the principle that all people are treated equally, regardless of skin color, gender, or national origin. The vast majority of Americans accept that principle. The civil rights revolution, however, failed to answer the question of what redress, if any, is owed to individuals from historically disadvantaged groups. That tension between two conflicting goals informs the current debate about affirmative action. This paper will examine the philosophical and legal underpinnings of that debate from the perspective of legal theorists and two seminal cases on the issue.
Affirmative action seeks to create more opportunities for women and minorities by conferring special consideration upon them in decisions involving hiring, firing, promotion, college admissions, and government contracts. In all of these areas, women and minorities traditionally have been underrepresented. Companies, government agencies, and universities use recruitment, set-asides, and preferences to achieve these goals.
Though the stated goal of affirmative action is equality, many challenge such programs precisely on those grounds. Opponents say that choosing one person over another because of their race, gender, or national origin violates the principle of equality, no matter how noble the goal.
The civil rights movement ended legal segregation, but bias continued to limit opportunities for minorities and women. Those cases and laws involved ônegativeö action; in other words, the courts and Congress barred certain acts, such as discriminating against prospective employees based on their race or gender. Such moves succeeded in eliminating the most egregious forms of discrimination, but the face of America largely remained unchanged. White males still dominated universities, government, and the business world. Equality seemed a long way off.
That prompted a call for ôaffirmativeö action to create oppo...