Page 51 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 51
c. ghosh ■ livin’ the meritocratic dream!
tervention by a set of institutions – whether it is the state, the market,
the non-profit world, or some cross-sector partnership. But what should
such an intervention look like? Many think that affirmative action pol-
icies should be the preferred form of such an intervention. Others pre-
fer Percent Plans. In the sections below I point out that affirmation ac-
tion policies are extremely controversial and have been so since the start.
Percent Plans, on the other hand, present a politically feasible alternative
as a strategy of spreading educational opportunity widely. Percent Plans
also come with the added advantage of being in alignment with the values
of the popular ideology of the American Dream. It is for this reason, and
some others I elaborate on in the final section of the essay, that it makes
sense that Percent Plans are increasingly becoming the preferred way for-
ward as a useful substitute for affirmative action policies.
Affirmative Action in University and College Admissions
Affirmative action policies were put into place in the early 1960s, during
the black Civil Rights Movement in the US. In 1961, President Kennedy
issued Executive Order No. 10925. This EO mandated that projects that
received federal funding should “take affirmative action” to ensure that
hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias. Moreover, Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that “[n]o person…shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VII also prohibit-
ed any employment practice that discriminated on the basis of race, gen-
der, religion, or national origin. It did, however, mention some exceptions:
under special circumstances it allowed the use of gender, religion, and na-
tional origin as legitimate bases for employer selection. Race, though, did
not make the list of such exceptions.
By 1965, the Johnson administration issued its own Executive Order
(11246; later amended by Executive order 11375). This EO called for the
correction of “the effects of past and present discrimination.” It prohib-
ited any federal contractor or subcontractor from discriminating against
anyone seeking employment or any employee because of their race, skin
color, religion, gender, or national origin. It also created for underrepre-
sented and historically marginalized groups a “protected-class” status.
Affirmative action policies have been controversial since the very be-
ginning and, over the last few decades, the Supreme Court of the Unit-
ed States has steadily eroded the scope of affirmative action policies in
university admissions. In one of the early challenges to an affirmative ac-
tion policy at the University of California, Davis’s Medical School, the
Supreme Court, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978),
49
tervention by a set of institutions – whether it is the state, the market,
the non-profit world, or some cross-sector partnership. But what should
such an intervention look like? Many think that affirmative action pol-
icies should be the preferred form of such an intervention. Others pre-
fer Percent Plans. In the sections below I point out that affirmation ac-
tion policies are extremely controversial and have been so since the start.
Percent Plans, on the other hand, present a politically feasible alternative
as a strategy of spreading educational opportunity widely. Percent Plans
also come with the added advantage of being in alignment with the values
of the popular ideology of the American Dream. It is for this reason, and
some others I elaborate on in the final section of the essay, that it makes
sense that Percent Plans are increasingly becoming the preferred way for-
ward as a useful substitute for affirmative action policies.
Affirmative Action in University and College Admissions
Affirmative action policies were put into place in the early 1960s, during
the black Civil Rights Movement in the US. In 1961, President Kennedy
issued Executive Order No. 10925. This EO mandated that projects that
received federal funding should “take affirmative action” to ensure that
hiring and employment practices were free of racial bias. Moreover, Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stated that “[n]o person…shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title VII also prohibit-
ed any employment practice that discriminated on the basis of race, gen-
der, religion, or national origin. It did, however, mention some exceptions:
under special circumstances it allowed the use of gender, religion, and na-
tional origin as legitimate bases for employer selection. Race, though, did
not make the list of such exceptions.
By 1965, the Johnson administration issued its own Executive Order
(11246; later amended by Executive order 11375). This EO called for the
correction of “the effects of past and present discrimination.” It prohib-
ited any federal contractor or subcontractor from discriminating against
anyone seeking employment or any employee because of their race, skin
color, religion, gender, or national origin. It also created for underrepre-
sented and historically marginalized groups a “protected-class” status.
Affirmative action policies have been controversial since the very be-
ginning and, over the last few decades, the Supreme Court of the Unit-
ed States has steadily eroded the scope of affirmative action policies in
university admissions. In one of the early challenges to an affirmative ac-
tion policy at the University of California, Davis’s Medical School, the
Supreme Court, in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978),
49
