rtunities for all. In 1965, President Johnson summarized the justification. ôYou do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, æyouÆre free to compete with all the others,Æ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates or opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.... We seek not...just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a resultö (AUAA, 2001).
President Nixon established minority hiring goals for government contractors. Though Nixon took pains to state that his minority hiring policy involved ôgoalsö and not ôquotas,ö the administration was clearly telling employers to consider race, gender, and national origin in their hiring decisions, or risk not being considered for government contracts (AUAA, 2001).
Affirmative action, however, really began with the judiciary, though the courts did not use that term. The Supreme Court, realizing the limited scope of its decisions, began to focus on results, and lower courts followed that lead.
Opponents argue that affirmative action has been a step backward. After working so long to create a colorblind society, affirmative action contravenes that goal by requiring decisions based on immutable characteristics. This violates the fundamental notion of equality that embodied the civil rights revolution.
Even those who have benefited from the policy criticize its operation. According to Shelby Steele (1990, p. 115), ôthese mandates have reburdened society with the very marriage of color and preference (in reverse) that we set out to eradicate. The old sin is reaffirmed in a new guise.ö
Steele (1990, p. 116) believes affirmative action skips a step in the ôhard business of developing a formerly oppressed people.ö With a level playing field, ...