The Evolution of Affirmative Action

Abstract

1964: “Contrary to the allegations of some opponents of this title, there is nothing in it that will give any power to the (Equal Employment Opportunity) Commission or to any court to require hiring, firing, or promotion of employees in order to meet a racial ‘quota’ or to achieve a certain racial balance. In fact, the very opposite is true. Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race, religion, and national origin are not to be used as the basis for hiring and firing. Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race or religion.” — Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, D-MN¹

1996: “…I am disheartened by the introduction of legislation [H.R. 2128] which would roll back the clock on civil rights in this country. Under the guise of returning to the ‘original intent’ of civil rights laws, this legislation would forbid the use of race and gender in governmental decision making and curtail proven and widely accepted remedies for present and past discrimination.” —Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-TX) ²

These two quotes represent the evolution of a public policy over the span of 32 years. Senator Humphrey, in the process of defending the legislation that was to become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, vehemently denied conservative charges that it would lead inevitably to a forced racial balancing act. Representative Jackson was speaking in opposition to a proposal that would undermine the policy of racial balance that had grown up around the Civil Rights Act of 1964. How did it happen that a threatened social change thoroughly denounced by Senator Humphrey became an established policy to be defended by Representative Jackson? This paper is a study of the implementation process of the policy of “affirmative action” and how it evolved from the first quote to the second. It is not a review of the merits or demerits of the policy itself, but simply an attempt to follow the evolution of an idea from its first expression to the current challenge, with particular emphasis in the area of federal employment law.