This paper provides an introductory overview of affirmative action, tracing the term's origins from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through its fuller definition in the 1970s and into modern legal controversy. The paper examines how affirmative action has been applied in employment, education, and housing, and explores the central debate surrounding it: whether such policies constitute necessary steps toward equality or amount to reverse discrimination against more qualified white applicants. Drawing on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and historical examples, including a landmark 2003 Supreme Court case, the paper presents multiple perspectives on this ongoing and emotionally charged social issue.
Just about everyone has heard of affirmative action, but what is it, really? Is it something only minorities benefit from? Is it really as controversial as some people seem to think? Affirmative action is a term people commonly use, but its true meaning can be very misleading.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines affirmative action as "positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded" ("Affirmative Action"). "Positive steps" can mean many things, but here they refer to the idea that women and minorities should enjoy the same rights and opportunities that anyone else in this country enjoys. It sounds simple, and it was meant to be simple — but the entire concept of affirmative action has become deeply controversial.
Affirmative action was not a widely used term until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed into legislation. The term was associated with the Act, but it was still not very common. It really came into widespread use in the 1970s, when the American Secretary of Labor fully defined who was affected by the ruling and what businesses, institutions, and educational facilities were required to do in order to implement affirmative action and ensure women and minorities had the same rights as anyone else in the system.
This is when the term began to become controversial, because many people started to view affirmative action as a kind of quota system — one that forced businesses and educational institutions to admit certain numbers of women and minorities, even if they were perceived as less qualified than other applicants. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that "affirmative action, if it did not impose preferences outright, at least countenanced them" ("Affirmative Action"). As a result, affirmative action became increasingly controversial and was opposed by many people.
That opposition did not stop affirmative action from gaining ground across the country. It was the law, and it was commonly applied in educational admissions, employee hiring, and even the guarantee that all people could qualify for decent, affordable housing. While it remained controversial, it also allowed many women and minorities to gain a foothold in the educational and business communities. Many individuals whom companies and schools might otherwise have overlooked obtained good educations and decent jobs because of affirmative action.
However, that did not stop others from arguing that it was preferential treatment that kept qualified white men out of jobs and programs for which they were highly qualified. Even President Clinton acknowledged the dilemma. He asked, "Imagine a college admissions committee trying to decide between the white [son] of an Appalachian coal miner's family and the African American son of a successful Pittsburgh neurosurgeon. Why should the black applicant get preference over the white applicant?" ("Affirmative Action"). Many people came to oppose affirmative action on these grounds and began to challenge it in the court system. For a broader look at how these tensions played out in American law and society, see the Wikipedia overview of affirmative action in the United States.
"2003 Supreme Court case on university admissions"
One thing is certain: affirmative action can be defined differently by different people. Some see it as a positive step for women and minorities, while others see it as a form of discrimination against white people. It is an emotional and heavily debated subject that is unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.