ause of discrimination, quotas disadvantage individual white males. This is inherently unfair. Why should only a handful of white males have to pay the price for all of society? This sense of unfairness drives much of the opposition to affirmative action (Urofsky 29-30).
Some African-Americans challenge the policy because it creates an assumption about the superiority of whites and the inferiority of whites. Shelby Steele writes that racial preferences ônot only reinforce AmericaÆs oldest racial myth but, for blacks, they have the effect of stigmatizing the already stigmatizedö (Mills 43-44).
The policy of affirmative action arose out of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and legislation such as the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act ended legal segregation and state-sanctioned discrimination, but bias continued to limit opportunities for minorities and women. Clearly, more needed to be done.
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 (for example, separate drinking fountains), but in many important areas the face of America remained unchanged. White males still dominated universities, government, and the business world; at some workplaces, white males held every job. Societal changes occurred at a glacial pace, if at all. Equality seemed a long way off.
That prompted a call for ôaffirmativeö action to create opportunities for all. President Kennedy first used the term affirmative action in a 1961 executive order that created a committee on equal employment opportunities. ôThe Contractor will take affirmative action, to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, with...