Affirmative action

Affirmative action originally referred to a set of policies and practices preventing discrimination based on race, creed, color and national origins. It now often refers to policies positively supporting members of disadvantaged or underrepresented groups that have previously suffered discrimination in areas such as education, employment and housing.[1][2][3][4] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Specific forms
 

The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to region and exists on a spectrum from a hard quota to merely targeting encouragement for increased participation. Some countries use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of government jobs, political positions, and school vacancies must be reserved for members of a certain group; an example of this is the reservation system in India.

In some other regions where quotas are not used, minoritized group members are given preference or special consideration in selection processes. In the United States, affirmative action in employment and education has been the subject of legal and political controversy. In 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Grutter v. Bollinger, held that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race as a plus-factor when evaluating applicants holistically and maintained the prohibition on the use of quotas.[5][6]

In the United Kingdom, hiring someone simply because of their protected group status, without regard to their performance, is illegal.[7][8][9] However, the law in the United Kingdom does allow for membership in a protected and disadvantaged group to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented in a given area and if the candidates are of equal merit. The controlling logic is that the person must not be chosen simply because of their group membership, but rather that the relevant authorities are allowed to use disadvantaged group status as a "tie-breaker" between two candidates of otherwise equal merit.[10] This is functionally the same as the practice known as "affirmative action" in the United States.

An alternative approach common in the United Kingdom is described as "positive action", however. Under this approach, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is often described as being "color blind", although the social viability of that concept is heavily contested in the United States.[11][12]

Origins

The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925",[13] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[14] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."[15]

In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[16]

Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[17]

It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated groups within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[18]

The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[19] and to address existing discrimination.[20]

Women
See also: Women in government (quotas)

Several different studies investigated the effect of affirmative action on women. Kurtulus (2012) in her review of affirmative action and the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973–2003 showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black, Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly than noncontractors because of the implementation of affirmative action. But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in the late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of affirmative action that started by President Reagan. Becoming a federal contractor increased white women's share of professional occupations by 0.183 percentage points, or 7.3 percent, on average during these three decades, and increased black women's share by 0.052 percentage points (or by 3.9 percent). Becoming a federal contractor also increased Hispanic women's and black men's share of technical occupations on average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively (or by 7.7 and 4.2 percent). These represent a substantial contribution of affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of women and minorities over the three decades under the study.[21] A reanalysis of multiple scholarly studies, especially in Asia, considered the impact of four primary factors on support for affirmative action programs for women: gender; political factors; psychological factors; and social structure. Kim and Kim (2014) found that, "Affirmative action both corrects existing unfair treatment and gives women equal opportunity in the future."[22]

Quotas

Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation.

India

Caste-based and other group based quotas are used in India for reservation.

EU

In 2012, the European Union Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by 2020.[23]

Sweden

In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The justice minister said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.[24]

National approaches
See also: Reserved political positions

In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes called positive action.

Africa

South Africa
See also: Black Economic Empowerment
Apartheid

The apartheid government, as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned, especially Afrikaner-owned companies. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Skilled jobs were also reserved for white people, and blacks were largely used as unskilled labour, enforced by legislation including the Mines and Works Act, the Job Reservations Act, the Native Building Workers Act, the Apprenticeship Act and the Bantu Education Act,[25] creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour.[26] Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the blacks' employment opportunities.

Since the 1960s the apartheid laws had been weakened. Consequently, from 1975 to 1990 the real wages of black manufacturing workers rose by 50%, while those of whites rose by 1%.[27]

The variation in skills and productivity between groups of people ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation and income within labour markets, which provided advantages to certain groups and characteristics of people. This in due course was the motivation to introduce affirmative action in South Africa, following the end of apartheid.[28]

Post-apartheid – the Employment Equity Act

Following the transition to democracy in 1994, the African National Congress-led government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct previous imbalances (a policy known as employment equity). As such, all employers were compelled by law to employ previously disenfranchised groups (blacks, Indians, and Coloureds). A related, but distinct concept is Black Economic Empowerment.[29]

The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by advancing people from designated groups. The designated groups who are to be advanced include all people of colour, women (including white women) and people with disabilities (including white people). Employment Equity legislation requires companies employing more than 50 people to design and implement plans to improve the representativity of workforce demographics, and report them to the Department of Labour.[30]

Employment Equity also forms part of a company's Black Economic Empowerment scorecard: in a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.

The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[31][32][33][34][35]

These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[27] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.[27] Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that in principle blacks may be favored, but in practice this should not lead to unfair discrimination against the others.[27][27]

Affirmative action purpose

Affirmative action was introduced through the Employment Equality Act, 55 in 1998, 4 years after the end of apartheid. This act was passed to promote the constitutional right of equality and exercise true democracy. This idea was to eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination, to achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of our people, to promote economic development and efficiency in the workforce and to give effects to the obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour Organisation.[28][36]

Many embraced the act; however some concluded that the act contradicted itself. The act eliminates unfair discrimination in certain sectors of the national labour market by imposing similar constraints on another.[28]

With the introduction of Affirmative Action, black economic empowerment (BEE) rose further in South Africa. The BEE was not a moral initiative to redress the wrongs of the past but to promote growth and strategies that aim to realize a country's full potential. The idea was targeting the weakest link in economics, which was inequality and which would help develop the economy. This is evident in the statement by the Department of Trade and Industry, "As such, this strategy stresses a BEE process that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development, and not merely the redistribution of existing wealth".[37][38] Similarities between the BEE and affirmative action are apparent; however there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality rather than taking wealth away from the skilled white labourers.[37]

The main goal of affirmative action is for the country to reach its full potential. This would result in a completely diverse workforce in economic and social sectors, thus broadening the economic base and stimulating economic growth.[39]

Outcomes

Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some positive and some negative. This depended on the approach to and the view of The Employment Equality Act and affirmative action.

Positive: Pre-Democracy, the apartheid governments discriminated against non-white races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past discriminations. Affirmative action also focused on combating structural racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all levels of society and sectors.[40] Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.[28]

Negative: As with all policies, there have also been negative outcomes. A quota system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a work force. This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the work force, ultimately impacting the free market.[39][40] Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap between the lower and middle class, which led to class struggles and a greater segregation.[36][40] Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite classes, as well as race entitlement. Some assert that affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. Negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drove skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to invest in South Africa.[40] As a result of the outcomes of affirmative action, the concept is continually evolving.[40]

South African jurist Martin van Staden argues that the way affirmative action and transformation policies have been implemented in South Africa has eroded state institutions, grown corruption, and undermined the rule of law in the country.[41][42]

Asia

China
Main article: Affirmative action in China

There is affirmative action in education for minority nationalities. This may equate to lowering minimum requirements for the National University Entrance Examination, which is a mandatory exam for all students to enter university.[43][44] Some universities set quotas for minority (non-Han) student intake. Further, minority students enrolled in ethnic minority-oriented specialties (e.g. language and literature programs) are provided with scholarships and/or pay no tuition, and are granted a monthly stipend.

Israel

A class-based affirmative action policy was incorporated into the admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel during the early to mid-2000s. In evaluating the eligibility of applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed. This policy made the four institutions, especially the echelons at the most selective departments, more diverse than they otherwise would have been. The rise in geographic, economic and demographic diversity of a student population suggests that the plan's focus on structural determinants of disadvantage yields broad diversity dividends.[45]

Israeli citizens who are; Women, Arabs, Blacks or people with disabilities are entitled to Affirmative Action in the civil service employment.[46] Also Israeli citizens who are Arabs, Blacks or people with disabilities are entitled for Affirmative Actions are entitled for full University tuition scholarships by the state.[47]

In her study of gender politics in Israel, Dafna Izraeli showed that the paradox of affirmative action for women directors is that the legitimation for legislating their inclusion on boards also resulted in the exclusion of women's interested as a legitimate issue on the boards' agendas. "The new culture of the men's club is seductive token women are under the pressure to become "social males" and prove that their competence as directors, meaning that they are not significantly different from men. In the negotiation for status as worthy peers, emphasizing gender signals that a woman is an "imposter", someone who does not rightfully belong in the position she is claiming to fill." And once affirmative action for women is fulfilled, and then affirmative action shares the element, as Izraeli put it, the "group equality discourse," making it easier for other groups to claim for a fairer distribution of resources. This suggests that affirmative action can have applications for different groups in Israel.[48]

India
Main article: Reservation in India

Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward marginalised un-represented indigenous communities as defined primarily by their caste i.e. Ethnicity. Reservation in India favors the marginalised sections of the population with almost 25% of Indian Citizens eligible for reservation benefits.[49] 59.5% of all college admissions and government jobs are reserved but they can also compete for the remaining 40.5% unreserved quota as well.[50] Before the year of 2019 only 0.7% of scholarships disbursed by the government were given on the basis of merit, with over 94% of the scholarships given on basis of Reservation instead.[51]

Indonesia

Indonesia has offered affirmative action for native Papuans in education, government civil worker selection, police & army selection.[52][53][54][55][56] After racism incident & 2019 Papua protests, many Papuan students choose to abandon their scholarship and go back to their respective provinces.[57] Several criticism, ranging from lack of quota to alleged corruption has been made towards the program. Prabowo Subianto, Indonesian Ministry of Defense (Indonesia) has expressed that he will put more effort on recruiting Papuans to Indonesian National Armed Forces.[58]

Malaysia
Main article: Ketuanan Melayu

The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP serves as a form of ethic affirmative action. Malaysia provides affirmative action to the majority to those that are deemed "Bumiputera", which includes the Malay population/Orang Asli as well as to the indigenous people of Sabah and Sarawak. However, the indigenous people of Malaysia (Orang Asli) do not have the same special rights of the rest of the Bumiputera as granted under the Article 153, as the Orang Asli are not referenced within article 153 itself. [59]

The historical/common argument is that the Malays have lower incomes than the Chinese and Indians, who have traditionally been involved in businesses and industries, who were also general migrant workers.[60][61] Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 23% of the population is of Chinese descent, while those of Indian descent comprise about 7% of the population.

The Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) has been dubbed a failure as of recent years, as evidence has pointed to the ever growing wealth disparity among Malays, that have widened the gap between the rich and poor Malays, while the Malaysian New Economic Policy has been shown to benefit the existing rich Malays instead of achieving its intention of helping poor Malays. [62]

(See also Bumiputra)

Sri Lanka

In 1981 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had lower rates of education than other areas due to missionary activity in the north and east, which essentially were the Tamil areas. Successive governments cultivated a historical myth after the colonial powers had left that the British had practised communal favouritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka. However, the Sinhalese in fact benefitted from trade and plantation cultivations over the rest of the other groups and their language and culture as well as the religion of Buddhism was fostered and made into mediums for schools over the Tamil language, which did not have the same treatment and Tamils learned English instead as there was no medium for Tamil until near independence. Tamils' knowledge of English and education came from the very American missionary activity by overseas Christians that the British were concerned will anger the Sinhalese and destroy their trading relationships, so they sent them to the Tamil areas instead to teach, thinking it would have no consequences and due to their small numbers. The British sending the missionaries to the north and east was for the protection of the Sinhalese and in fact showed favouritism to the majority group instead of the minorities to maintain trading relationships and benefits from them. The Tamils, out of this random benefit from learning English and basic education excelled and flourished and were able to take many civil service jobs to the chagrin of the Sinhalese. The myth of Divide and Rule is untrue. The 'policy of standardisation' was typical of affirmative action policies, in that it required drastically lower standards for Sinhalese students than for the more academic Tamils who had to get about ten more marks to enter into universities. The policy in fact is an example of discrimination against the Tamil ethnic group.[63]

Taiwan

A 2004 legislation requires that, for a firm with 100 employees or more wishing to compete for government contracts, at least 1 per cent of its employees must be Taiwanese aborigines.[64] Ministry of Education and Council of Aboriginal Affairs announced in 2002 that Taiwanese Aboriginal students would have their high-school or undergraduate entrance exams boosted by 33% for demonstrating some knowledge of their tribal language and culture.[65] The percentage of boost have been revised several times, and the latest percentage is 35% in 2013.[66]

Europe

Finland

In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for persons who reach a certain standard of skills in the Swedish language; for students admitted in these quotas, the education is partially arranged in Swedish.[67][68] The purpose of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of professionals with skills in Swedish are educated for nationwide needs.[67] The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.

France

No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 French Constitution.[69] Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Priority Education Zones", are granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po).[70]

The French Ministry of Defence tried in 1990 to make it easier for young French soldiers of North-African descent to be promoted in rank and obtain driving licenses. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant[71] in the Ministry of Defence newspaper (Armées d'aujourd'hui), the driving license and rank plan was cancelled. After the Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arab-French students was made, but Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French constitution. However, some French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain number of students from impoverished families.[72]

Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All appointments of males as directors will be invalid as long as the quota is not met, and monetary penalties may apply for other directors.[73]

Germany

Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover, the disabled should be preferred to non-disabled people. This is typical for all positions in state and university service as of 2007, typically using the phrase "We try to increase diversity in this line of work". In recent years, there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. Germany's Left Party brought up the discussion about affirmative action in Germany's school system. According to Stefan Zillich, quotas should be "a possibility" to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a Gymnasium (University-preparatory school).[74] Headmasters of Gymnasien have objected, saying that this type of policy would "be a disservice" to poor children.[75]

Norway

In all public stock companies (ASA) boards, either gender should be represented by at least 40%.[76] This affects roughly 400 companies of over 300,000 in total.[77]

Seierstad & Opsahl in their study of the effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway found that there are few boards chaired by a woman, from the beginning of the implementation of affirmative action policy period to August 2009, the proportion of boards led by a woman has increased from 3.4% to 4.3%. This suggests that the law has had a marginal effect on the sex of the chair and the boards remain internally segregated. Although at the beginning of our observation period, only 7 of 91 prominent directors were women. The gender balance among prominent directors has changed considerable through the period, and at the end of the period, 107 women and 117 men were prominent directors. By applying more restrictive definitions of prominence, the proportion of directors who are women generally increases. If only considering directors with at least three directorships, 61.4% of them are women. When considering directors with seven or more directorships, all of them are women. Thus, affirmative action increase the female population in the director position.[78]

A 2016 study found no effect of the ASA representation requirement on either valuation or profits of the affected companies, and also no correlation between the requirement and the restructuring of companies away from ASA.[79][80]

Romania

Romani people are allocated quotas for access to public schools and state universities.[81]

Russia

Quota systems existed in the USSR for various social groups including ethnic minorities (as a compensation of their "cultural backwardness"), women and factory workers.

Quotas for access to university education, offices in the Soviet system and the Communist Party existed: for example, the position of First Secretary of a Soviet Republic's (or Autonomous Republic's) Party Committee was always filled by a representative of this republic's "titular ethnicity".

Modern Russia retains this system partially. Quotas are abolished, however, preferences for some ethnic minorities and inhabitants of certain territories[82] remain.

Slovakia

The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution.[83]

United Kingdom

The Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.[84] In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is illegal by default in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public services,[7][8][9] although exceptions exist, to whit: "Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows an employer to treat an applicant or employee with a protected characteristic (eg race, sex or age) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than someone without that characteristic who is as qualified for the role. The employer must reasonably think that people with the protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage or are under-represented in that particular activity. Taking the positive action must be a proportionate means of enabling or encouraging people to overcome the disadvantage or to take part in the activity.")[10]

Specific exemptions include:

In 2019, an employment tribunal ruled that, while attempting to create a diverse force, the Cheshire Police had discriminated against a "well prepared" white heterosexual male. The ruling stated that "while positive action can be used to boost diversity, it should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were all equally well qualified for a role".[87]

North America

Canada
Further information: Employment equity (Canada) and Federal Contractors' Program

The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities. Less than one-third of Canadian Universities offer alternative admission requirements for students of aboriginal descent. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in the Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.[88]

United States
Main article: Affirmative action in the United States

The policy of affirmative action dates to the Reconstruction Era in the United States, 1863–1877.[89] Current policy was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.[16] Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[90][91]

On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[3] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[20][92] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups may be protected from discrimination under different laws.[93]

Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[94] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.[5] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas to increase the number of minorities and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[95]

Oceania

New Zealand

Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded improved access to university courses, or have scholarships earmarked specifically for them.[7] Affirmative action is provided for under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993[96] and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[97]

South America

Brazil
Further information: Vestibular exam § Racial quotas

Some Brazilian universities (state and federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and Amerindians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are also quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for people with disabilities in the civil public services.[98] The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of the University of Brasília for "resurrecting nazist ideals", appealed to the Supreme Federal Court against the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves for minorities.[99] The Supreme Court unanimously approved their constitutionality on 26 April 2012.[100]

International organizations

United Nations

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved".[101]

The United Nations Human Rights Committee states that "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."[101]

Support

The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[102] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and slave laws.

A 2017 study found that affirmative action in the United States "increases the black share of employees over time: in 5 years after an establishment is first regulated, the black share of employees increases by an average of 0.8 percentage points. Strikingly, the black share continues to grow at a similar pace even after an establishment is deregulated. One could argue that this persistence is driven in part by affirmative action inducing employers to improve their methods for screening potential hires."[103]

Polls

According to a poll taken by USA Today in 2005, the majority of Americans support affirmative action for women, while views on minority groups were more split.[104] Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do.[104] However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.[104] More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 finds that 55% of Americans feel that affirmative action in general should be discontinued, though 55% support it for people with disabilities.[105] A Gallup poll from 2005 showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49% opposing), with support and opposition among Hispanics falling between those of blacks and whites. Support among blacks, unlike among whites, had almost no correlation with political affiliation.[106]

A 2009 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey found 65% of American voters opposed the application of affirmative action to gay people, with 27% indicating they supported it.[105]

A Leger poll taken in 2010 found 59% of Canadians opposed considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.[107]

A 2014 Pew Research Center poll found that 63% of Americans thought affirmative action programs aimed at increasing minority representation on college campuses were "a good thing", compared to 30% who thought they were "a bad thing".[108] The following year, Gallup released a poll showing that 67% of Americans supported affirmative action programs aimed at increasing female representation, compared to 58% who supported such programs aimed at increasing the representation of racial minorities.[109]

Criticism
See also: Affirmative action in the United States § Arguments against affirmative action, and Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations

Critics of affirmative action offer a variety of arguments as to why it is counterproductive or should be discontinued. For example, critics may argue that affirmative action hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups.[110]

Some opponents of affirmative action argue that it is a form of reverse discrimination, that any effort to cure discrimination through affirmative action is wrong because it, in turn, is another form of discrimination.[111] Some critics claim that court cases such as Fisher v. University of Texas, which held that colleges have some discretion to consider race when making admissions decisions, demonstrate how discrimination occurs in the name of affirmative action.[112]

Some critics of affirmative action argue that affirmative action devalues the actual accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive.[113][114]

Some argue that affirmative action policies create an opportunity for fraud, by encouraging non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (that is, members of groups that benefit from affirmative action) in order to take advantage of group preference policies.[114][115]

Critics of affirmative action suggest that programs may benefit the members of the targeted group that least need the benefit, that is those who have the greatest social, economic and educational advantages within the targeted group.[114] Other beneficiaries may be described as wholly unqualified for the opportunity made available through affirmative action.[116] They may argue that at the same time the people who lose the most to affirmative action are the least fortunate members of non-preferred groups.[114]

Another criticism of affirmative action is that it may reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best. Beneficiaries of affirmative action may conclude that it is unnecessary to work as hard, and those who do not benefit may perceive hard work as futile.[114]

Mismatching

Mismatching is the term given to the supposed negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for them. For example, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching hypothesis, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student's chance of dropping out. Thus, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.[117][118][119][116]

Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a 24 August 2007 article published in The Wall Street Journal. Richard Sander concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black attorneys than there would have been if there had been no affirmative action.[120] The article also states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.[121]

Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%.[122] A 2008 study by Jesse Rothstein and Albert H. Yoon confirmed Sander's mismatch findings, but also found that eliminating affirmative action would "lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools".[123] These high numbers predictions were doubted in a review of previous studies by Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim. Their 2016 article found a strong indication that affirmative action results in a mismatch effect. They argued that the attendance by some African-American students to less-selective schools would significantly improve the low first attempt rate at passing the state bar, but they cautioned that such improvements could be outweighed by decreases in law school attendance.[124]

A 2011 study proposed that mismatch can only occur when a selective school possesses private information that, had this information been disclosed, would have changed the student's choice of school. The study found that this is in fact the case for Duke University, and that this information predicts the student's academic performance after beginning college.[125]

A 2016 study on affirmative action in India fails to find evidence for the mismatching hypothesis.[126] In India 90% IIT-Roorkee dropouts are backward caste.[127]

gollark: <@!309787486278909952> Multiply matrices already.
gollark: What community guidelines forbid 4D geometry?
gollark: &colour 0bee00
gollark: &colour abcdef
gollark: Ah, it's nimuous.

See also

References
  1. "positive discrimination". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  2. "affirmative action". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  3. "Executive Order 11246—Equal employment opportunity". The Federal Register. Archived from the original on 30 March 2010. Retrieved 5 February 2010.
  4. "Affirmative Action". Stanford University. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
  5. "Highlights of the 2002–2003 Supreme Court Term". Supct.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  6. Melvin I Urofsky, The Affirmative Action Puzzle: A Living History From Reconstruction to Today (2020)
  7. Commission for Racial Equality (29 September 2006). "Affirmative action around the world". Catalyst. Commission for Racial Equality. Archived from the original on 24 September 2007.
  8. GOV.UK (4 April 2013). "Types of discrimination'". Discrimination: your rights. GOV.UK. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
  9. Personneltoday.com "Is there a case for positive discrimination?" Archived 5 January 2008 at the Wayback Machine
  10. https://www.xperthr.co.uk/faq/what-positive-action-is-permitted-under-discrimination-legislation/103008/
  11. Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (2014). Racism Without Racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-1-44-222055-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  12. Gallagher, Charles A. (2003). "Color-Blind Privilege: The Social and Political Functions of Erasing the Color Line in Post Race America". Race, Gender & Class. 10 (4): 22–37. JSTOR 41675099.
  13. "President Kennedy's E.O.10925: Seedbed of Affirmative Action" (PDF). Society for History in the Federal Government. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  14. A Brief History of Affirmative Action Archived 12 May 2015 at the Wayback Machine, University of California, Irvine (access date 16 May 2015)
  15. Executive Order 11246
  16. "Affirmative Action: History and Rationale". Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President. 19 July 1995. Archived from the original on 27 May 2011. Retrieved 6 December 2018.
  17. "Affirmative Action". Harvard Blogs. Harvard Law School. Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
  18. "Equal Opportunity & Affirmative Action Policy Statement". chatham.edu. Archived from the original on 1 May 2015. Retrieved 30 April 2015.
  19. Sowell, Thomas (2004). Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-10199-6
  20. Affirmative Action. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1 April 2009.
  21. Fidan Ana Kurtulus, "Affirmative Action and the Occupational Advancement of Minorities and Women During 1973–2003," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society (2012) 51#2 pp 213–246. online
  22. Kim, Sunhee; Kim, Seoyong (March 2014). "Exploring the effect of four factors on affirmative action programs for women". Asian Journal of Women's Studies. 20 (1): 30–69. Archived from the original on 4 September 2015.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Pdf. Archived 24 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine
  23. "The EU's Boardroom Quota Battle Is Over, But Women Cannot Yet Rest". Forbes.com.
  24. "Uppsala discriminated against Swedes". The Local. 21 December 2006.
  25. "Job Reservations Act". South End Museum. Retrieved 31 March 2011.
  26. "White Workers and the Colour Bar". Sahistory.org.za. 3 April 2011. Archived from the original on 19 March 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  27. Race, law and poverty in the new South Africa, The Economist, 30 September 1999
  28. Stokes, G. (15 March 2010). "The problem with affirmative action". Fanews.co.za.
  29. Archived 18 March 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  30. "Employment Equity FAQ". Southafrica.info. Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  31. "BEE's Glass Slipper". Mg.co.za. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  32. "BEE: A man made disaster". Moneyweb.co.za. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  33. "'SAB deal to enrich black elite': Fin24: Companies". Fin24. Archived from the original on 3 October 2011. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
  34. "Business Report – Home – Motlanthe warns BEE council has failed". Busrep.co.za. 9 February 2010. Archived from the original on 16 May 2016. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
  35. "Manyi vows to get tough over BEE – Mail & Guardian Online: The smart news source". Mg.co.za. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
  36. Bergmann, B. (1999). "The continuing need for affirmative action". The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 39 (5): 757–768. doi:10.1016/S1062-9769(99)00027-7.
  37. "Black economic empowerment. (n.d.)". Southafrica.info. Archived from the original on 1 November 2012.
  38. Franchi, V. (2003). "The racialization of affirmative action in organizational discourses: A case study of symbolic racism in post-apartheid south africa". International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 27 (2): 157–187. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(02)00091-3.
  39. Edigheji, O. (2006). "Affirmative action and state capacity in a democratic South Africa. Policy: issues & actors, 20(4)" (PDF). cps.org.za. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 May 2014.
  40. Goga, F. (n.d.). A critique of affirmative action: The concept. Retrieved from "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 22 June 2012. Retrieved 5 November 2012.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  41. Ryan, Ciaran (16 September 2019). "A government unhinged". Moneyweb. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
  42. van Staden, Martin (8 February 2019). The Constitution and the Rule of Law: An Introduction. Rule of Law Project. ISBN 978-0-9921788-6-4. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
  43. Graduate Student Admission Ordainment – Ministry of Education, PRC
  44. "Ethnic and Religious Affairs Commission of Guangdong Province". Mzzjw.gd.gov.cn. 15 October 2007. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  45. Alon, Sigal (2011). "The Diversity Dividends of a Need-blind and Color-blind Affirmative Action Policy". Social Science Research. 40 (6): 1494–1505. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.05.005.
  46. "משרד הכלכלה והתעשייה". משרד הכלכלה והתעשייה. Retrieved 22 October 2017.
  47. http://che.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A1-1-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%93.pdf
  48. Izraeli, Dafna (March–April 2003). "Gender Politics in Israel: The Case of Affirmative Action for Women Directors". Women's Studies International Forum. 26 (2): 109–128. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(03)00043-8.
  49. "Govt OKs 10% job quota for economically weaker sections". Deccan Herald. 7 January 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  50. "Modi govt announces 10 per cent quota for economically backward in general category". The Economic Times. 7 January 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  51. "Guess how many Indians get merit-based scholarships". Rediff. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
  52. "777 Putra Asli Papua Lolos Program Beasiswa ADIK dan ADEM". kumparan (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  53. "Afirmasi Pendidikan Tinggi – Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia". Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  54. "Seleksi CPNS KKP 2019-2020: Ada Kekhususan Bagi Orang Papua". tirto.id (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  55. antaranews.com (25 February 2020). "OAP calon siswa Bintara Noken di Papua capai 2.407 orang". Antara News. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  56. Redaksi. "Gercin Minta Kapolri Akomodir OAP Masuk Akpol | Papua Today" (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  57. developer, medcom id (3 October 2019). "Siswa SMA Penerima Beasiswa Memilih Pulang ke Papua". medcom.id (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  58. Antara. "Prabowo Disebut Bakal Perbanyak Prajurit TNI Asal Papua". nasional (in Indonesian). Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  59. (PDF) http://web.usm.my/km/KM%2021,2003/21-i.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  60. (PDF) http://www.ecineq.org/ecineq_paris19/papers_EcineqPSE/paper_406.pdf. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  61. "Encyclopedia of the Nations, "Malaysia Poverty and Wealth"". Nationsencyclopedia.com. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  62. https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/492357. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  63. "Did the British Divide & Rule Ceylon? | Ilankai Tamil Sangam". Sangam.org. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  64. "Taiwan: Indigenous peoples". Minority Rights Group International.
  65. Donald B. Holsinger; W. James Jacob (29 May 2009). Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 295. ISBN 978-90-481-2652-1.
  66. "原住民學生升學保障及原住民公費留學辦法(民國 102 年08月19 日 )" [Aboriginal Students Enrollment Guarantee and Public Funding for Aboriginal Study Abroad Act] (in Chinese). Ministry of Justice (Taiwan).
  67. "Hakuopas 2011. Lääketieteen ja hammaslääketieteen opiskelijavalinnat" (PDF) (in Finnish). Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki. 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 October 2011. Retrieved 4 June 2011.
  68. "Oikeustieteellinen tiedekunta. Hakuopas 2011" (PDF) (in Finnish). Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki. 2011. p. 3. Retrieved 4 June 2011.
  69. Jonathan D. Mott, PhD (7 February 1992). "The French Constitution of 1958 and its Amendments". Thisnation.com. Retrieved 28 April 2014.
  70. Ghorbal, Karim (2015). "Esencia colonial de una política contemporánea: Por un enfoque fanoniano de la discriminación positiva en Francia". Culture & History Digital Journal. 4 (2): e016. doi:10.3989/chdj.2015.016.
  71. Jean-Pierre Steinhofer, "Beur ou ordinaire", Armée d'ajourd'hui, 1991.
  72. Eeckhout, Laetitia Van (17 December 2008). "Le Plan Sarkozy". Le Monde. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  73. "Vie Publique". Vie-publique.fr. 25 June 2002. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  74. Susanne Vieth-Entus (29. December 2008): "Sozialquote: Berliner Gymnasien sollen mehr Schüler aus armen Familien aufnehmen". Der Tagesspiegel
  75. Martin Klesmann (23 February 2009). "'Kinder aus Neukölln würden sich nicht integrieren lassen' – Ein Politiker und ein Schulleiter streiten über Sozialquoten an Gymnasien". Berliner Zeitung
  76. "LOV-1997-06-13-45 Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven)". Lovdata.no. Retrieved 29 July 2010.
  77. "27.000 flere bedrifter i Norge". nettavisen.no. Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  78. Seierstad, Cathrine; Opsahl, Tore (March 2011). "For the few not the many? The effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway". Scandinavian Journal of Management. 27 (1): 44–54. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2010.10.002.
  79. "Studie: Kjønnskvotering ingen effekt på lønnsomhet". e24.no. Retrieved 5 June 2018.
  80. Eckbo, Espen; Nygaard, Knut; Thorburn, Karin (26 December 2016). "How Costly Is Forced Gender-Balancing of Corporate Boards?". European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI) – Finance Working Paper No. 463/2016; Tuck School of Business Working Paper No. 2746786. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2746786.
  81. "Romii – PROGRESE ÎNREGISTRATE ÎN ROMÂNIA ÎN PERIOADA 2007–2008". Retrieved 30 January 2013.
  82. "Представители коренных малочисленных народов Севера имеют право получить бесплатную юридическую помощь". 18 February 2016.
  83. Goldirova, Renata. "Slovakia bans positive discrimination". Euobserver.com. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  84. "Equality Act 2010". Legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  85. "Police recruitment 'will be 50:50'". BBC News. 12 September 2001.
  86. Richard Kelly and Isobel White (29 April 2009). All-women shortlists (PDF). House of Commons Library. SN/PC/05057. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  87. "Force discriminated against white male". BBC News. 22 February 2019.
  88. "GNWT – Human Resources – Affirmative Action". Hr.gov.nt.ca. 3 April 2012. Archived from the original on 3 August 2012. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  89. Melvin I. Urofsky, The Affirmative Action Puzzle: A Living History From Reconstruction to Today (2020).
  90. "President Kennedy's E.O.10925: Seedbed of Affirmative Action" (PDF). Society for History in the Federal Government. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  91. "Executive Order 10925 – Establishing The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010. Retrieved 5 February 2010.
  92. "Executive Order 11246 and Affirmative Action « Publishing the Long Civil Rights Movement". Archived from the original on 19 October 2014.
  93. "Federal Employment Discrimination Laws". EmployeeIssues.com. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
  94. Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias; also see Norma M. Riccucci. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002
  95. Steven M. Teles (2010). The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton University Press. pp. 235–37. ISBN 978-1400829699.
  96. "Human Rights Act 1993 No 82 (as of 1 July 2013), Public Act 73 Measures to ensure equality – New Zealand Legislation". Legislation.govt.nz. 1 July 2013. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  97. "New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as of 1 July 2013), Public Act 19 Freedom from discrimination – New Zealand Legislation". Legislation.govt.nz. 1 July 2013. Retrieved 1 September 2013.
  98. Plummer, Robert (25 September 2006). "Black Brazil Seeks a Better Future". BBC News. São Paulo.
  99. Por Rodrigo Haidar e Filipe Coutinho. "DEM entra com ADPF contra cotas raciais" (in Portuguese). Conjur.com.br. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  100. Débora Santos (26 April 2012). "Supremo decide pro unanimidade pela constiucionalidade das cotas" (in Portuguese). g1.globo.com. Retrieved 3 June 2012.
  101. United Nations Committee on Human Rights, General Comment 18 on Non-discrimination, Paragraph 10
  102. Christophe Jaffrelot, India's Silent Revolution: The rise of lower castes in northern India, p. 321. 2003
  103. Miller, Conrad (2017). "The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 9 (3): 152–190. doi:10.1257/app.20160121.
  104. "Usatoday.Com". Usatoday.Com. 20 May 2005. Retrieved 28 April 2014.
  105. "June 3, 2009 – U.S. Voters Disagree 3-1 With Sotomayor On Key Case, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Abolish Affirmative Action". Quinnipiac.edu. 3 June 2009.
  106. Jones, Jeffrey M. (23 August 2005). "Race, Ideology, and Support for Affirmative Action". Gallup. Retrieved 11 March 2013.
  107. Akin, David (12 August 2010). "Canadians against job hiring quotas". Toronto Sun. Archived from the original on 4 November 2012.
  108. Drake, Bruce (22 April 2014). "Public strongly backs affirmative action programs on campus". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
  109. Riffkin, Rebecca (26 August 2015). "Higher Support for Gender Affirmative Action Than Race". Gallup. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
  110. Cultural Whiplash: Unforeseen Consequences of America's Crusade Against Racial Discrimination / Patrick Garry (2006) ISBN 1-58182-569-2
  111. Fish, Stanley (November 1993). "Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Got to Call the Kettle Black". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  112. Newkirk, Vann R. (5 August 2017). "The Myth of Reverse Racism: The idea of white victimhood is increasingly central to the debate over affirmative action". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  113. Sher, George, "Preferential Hiring", in Tom Regan (ed.), Just Business: New Introductory Essays in Business Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1983, p. 40.
  114. Sowell, Thomas (2004). Affirmative Action Around the World. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300107753.
  115. Yang, Tseming (2006). "Choice and Fraud in Racial Identification: The Dilemma of Policing Race in Affirmative Action, the Census, and a Color-Blind Society". Michigan Journal of Race and Law. 11: 367. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  116. "Charles Murray". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2 March 2019.
  117. Does affirmative action hurt minorities?, Los Angeles Times, 26 September 2007
  118. Quotas on trial, by Thomas Sowell, 8 January 2003
  119. Heriot, Gail L. (December 2010). "Want to Be a Doctor? A Scientist? An Engineer? An Affirmative Action Leg Up May Hurt Your Chances". Engage. 11 (3): 18–25. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3112683. SSRN 3112683.
  120. Heriot, Gail (24 August 2007). "Affirmative Action Backfires". Wall Street Journal.
  121. Sander, Richard H. (2004). "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools" (PDF). Stanford Law Review. 57 (2): 367–483. JSTOR 40040209.
  122. Fisman, Ray (29 April 2005). "Slate.com". Slate.com. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
  123. Jaschik, Scott (3 September 2008). "Attacking the 'Mismatch' Critique of Affirmative Action". Inside Higher Education. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  124. Arcidiacono, Peter; Lovenheim, Michael (1 March 2016). "Affirmative Action and the Quality–Fit Trade-off". Journal of Economic Literature. 54 (1): 3–51. doi:10.1257/jel.54.1.3.
  125. Arcidiacono, Peter; Aucejo, Esteban M.; Fang, Hanming; Spenner, Kenneth I. (November 2011). "Does affirmative action lead to mismatch? A new test and evidence". Quantitative Economics. 2 (3): 303–333. doi:10.3982/QE83.
  126. Bagde, Surendrakumar; Epple, Dennis; Taylor, Lowell (1 June 2016). "Does Affirmative Action Work? Caste, Gender, College Quality, and Academic Success in India". American Economic Review. 106 (6): 1495–1521. doi:10.1257/aer.20140783.
  127. "90% IIT-Roorkee dropouts are backward caste: A case against affirmative action?".

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.