Assignment 3, the audio story, was my least favorite production of the course. There were several problems with this that distract me whenever I revisit it, one of which—the remarkably low audio level—is impossible to miss. However, I recorded my voice-over in two different locations, which resulted in very different sounding parts of my narration. Also, the interview was difficult to edit as my subject spoke with several ums and mid-sentence pauses, which ultimately is my fault as I did not tell him otherwise.

Assignment 5, the audio slideshow, is the project that I have chosen to display on this blog. In my mind, this assignment was the most fun to complete. Working on this project meant that I got to drive to Salem and spend a couple hours strolling around the county’s Parole & Probation Office, grabbing audio and taking pictures of a real-life setting. I feel that the finished product from this assignment is a great display of my hard work. I am still impressed by the photos that I was able to take away from that experience, and I am proud of some of the nifty things I did with the slideshow. Nevertheless, looking back at it now I see a couple areas where improvement could be made. For example, I feel that I could’ve conducted a better interview. I could’ve asked questions that were a bit more direct, and I certainly could’ve given the subject better parameters with which to answer the questions.

I made drastic improvements on that in Assignment 7, the video project. I learned how to create a fun and casual environment for the subject before the interview, as well as how to provide the subject with tips on responding so his/her answers can be used in the final product. The main improvement that I would make on this project would’ve been the lighting for the video, which in some instances almost ruined fantastic shots. Also, there were particular shots that I was really excited about using, but because I didn’t review them at the scene, ended up having to throw out, as there were some mistakes in the way they were framed. As a result, I will always review any footage that I take in the future.

Yet in Salem, Oregon, in a capital that is currently reeling from cuts in funding and a growing methamphetamine epidemic, these departments stand as a stunning contradiction to this tradition of gender imbalance. The following is a link to a slideshow that documents the daily experiences of Andrea Morley, a 29-year-old Deputy Sheriff in Marion County, Oregon.

http://blip.tv/file/2945522

Through the use of racial and gender preferences, affirmative action programs have for decades sought to expand the access of minorities and females to employment and higher education. While affirmative action has been remarkably successful, concerns have arisen regarding its continued need and legitimacy. The main question today is whether or not race and gender should remain as criteria in the recruitment processes of businesses and universities. Despite its past successes, the inherent discriminatory qualities of affirmative action mean that it should be superseded by a less overt alternative for eliminating disparities in this country.

Opponents of affirmative action cannot deny the benefits that affirmative action ushered in. Since its implementation, opportunities for employment and higher education have drastically increased for both women and minorities. Prior to 1963, discrimination was deeply entrenched in the hiring processes of businesses. Jo freeman, an affirmative action proponent, argued in a 1970s speech that “institutional discrimination is built into the normal working relations of an institution. [Its eradication] requires active review of…the practices by which the institution operates.” Affirmative action succeeded in doing just that, and today employment across all industries has evolved into a more open process, in which most anyone can serve in the military, teach economics, or be promoted to a CEO position.

All of this progress should not be construed as evidence against the disparities plaguing this country. A disproportionate number of minorities still languish in urban school districts. Women and minorities still only hold a small percentage of positions within the U.S. government, and white male business leaders still dwarf the number of their women and minority counterparts. Paul Shang, UO Vice President and advocate of affirmative action, said the following: “there is still a long road to haul with regard to creating an equal opportunity for everybody.” But while Shang is unequivocally correct, he is wrong to assume that affirmative action programs are what will get us there. Despite the outstanding track record of these programs, it’s time that Americans started to reconsider the vehicle with which they will make this haul.

The problem with affirmative action is the forcefulness with which it approaches discrimination. During the 1960s, when race and gender were unavoidable issues, affirmative action worked brilliantly. It combated deep-seeded disparities by favoring those who were at a disadvantage. Now however, as America attempts to transcend its long history of discrimination, an alternative needs to emerge that no longer makes racial distinctions. One such alternative is the top 10% rule, a policy in Texas that operates by offering automatic admission for high school students with a GPA in the top 10% of their class. Although the rule does not explicitly aim to aid minorities, due to Texas’s large minority populations the rule has maintained similar levels of diversity to the previous affirmative action program. Another alternative is put eloquently presented by Chetly Zarko, a notable opponent of affirmative action in Michigan. Zarko argues that preferences should be offered off of economic status instead of race or gender. Yet another alternative can be seen in a Time magazine article written by Joe Klein, in which he argues “the only real long-term answer to inequality is to provide a better educational system for the poor…. Better schools are the most important thing we can do to ameliorate racial and economic injustice.”

Proponents of affirmative action argue that these alternatives are not effective enough because they are not explicitly aimed at helping minorities. However, a study conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans are far more reluctant to support assistance for women and minorities if the programs contain explicit minority preferences. The results of the study imply that affirmative action alternatives would be much more conducive with the public opinion.

Advocates of affirmative action also often fail to see the how blatantly the programs use discrimination. An article from Inside Higher Ed captures a moment in which the beneficiaries of affirmative action are reversed. The article places the issue of affirmative action in a new context by reporting on the efforts of liberal arts colleges to deal with the growing majority of female students on campus by offering preferential treatment to male applicants. Advocates should be encouraged to take this as an opportunity to reevaluate the legitimacy of affirmative action, and whether or not it’s the right policy for bringing about the end of discrimination.

The last problem with affirmative action is that its original goal has been altered. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided in Grutter v. Bollinger that affirmative action was acceptable because of the educational opportunities that stem from a more diverse environment. This is a departure from the traditional aim of affirmative action, which was strictly to broaden access to work and education. Although the initial premise behind affirmative action was enough to validate its use in the past, its new aim of guaranteeing students an experience with cultural diversity is simply not enough to warrant the continued use of a discriminatory selection process.

Whether or not Affirmative action will exist in the future depends partially on the opinion of President Obama. This is difficult to gauge however, as Obama has shown support for both affirmative action and its alternatives. A 2008 New York Times article analyzed his stance. The article provides ample evidence of Obama’s support for affirmative action, but also cites him in The Audacity of Hope saying “an emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific programs” is both a good policy and good politics. If Obama chooses to act on this issue, it’ll likely mean he’s employing alternatives in addition to the current affirmative action programs; it’s highly unlikely that Obama will roll back any current program.

The future of Affirmative action hinges most, however, on the opinions of the current Supreme Court Justices. Due to the political danger of acting on this controversial topic, the Judicial branch has for the last 40s years been the primary influence on affirmative action. A recent New York Times article compared the opinions Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. These Justices are both ethnic minorities and have both had first-hand experiences with affirmative action, yet they hold completely differing views in the debate over it. Ultimately, whichever Justice can hold more influence over the rest of the Court will have the biggest say in the life of these programs.

This source is the text of a lecture, delivered several times during the 1970s by renowned feminist Jo Freeman, covering the meaning and the prevalence of institutional discrimination. The lecture is found on Jo Freeman’s website under the category of “Women in Society.” The website is a compilation of articles written by Freeman throughout her career. This source falls into the citizen category because it puts forth an opinion on the issue of affirmative action, instead of an objective analysis. Also, the lecture is rooted mostly in assumptions, and doesn’t depend on factual evidence. Despite the lack of statistical references, this speech is a useful source because it illustrates a fundamental premise behind affirmative action programs. Freeman argues throughout the lecture that deep-seeded discrimination existed in the recruitment processes of institutions, and claimed that more would need to done in order to eradicate it. She points to social networks, notions of merit, and repercussions from past inequalities as proof of the continued institutional discrimination across all industries. This speech can serve as an example of the arguments used in the 60s and 70s to validate the enactment of affirmative action programs. Moreover, many of the arguments in the speech still hold weight today, and thus can accurately portray the opposition to a reduction or ban of these programs.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/admit

This source is an article reporting on private liberal arts schools that, in an effort to deal with the growing majority of female students on campus, have begun to offer preferential treatment to male applicants. The source comes from Inside Higher Ed, a free online publication that addresses a myriad of issues relating to colleges and universities. The audience of Inside Higher Ed could be composed of professors, college students, or parents of college students—all of whom would have a vested interest in college admissions policies. The article is a journalistic source because it maintains objectivity throughout its examination of the story, and supports itself through statistics. The article links to several pertinent sites, and quotes more than once a proposal by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the colleges. This article is a remarkable source because it places the issue of affirmative action in an entirely new context. Traditionally, affirmative action sought to remedy disparities in gender by offering preferential treatment to females. This article, however, captures an instance in which the roles are reversed. This source can be used to encourage stakeholders and experts alike to reevaluate affirmative action in this new light. This source can also be used to suggest that affirmative action has already accomplished its goals of equality, and that Americans should begin to consider terminating these programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/us/politics/03affirmative.html

This source is a 2008 article from the New York Times offering an analysis of Barack Obama’s stance on the issue of affirmative action. The audience comprised of citizens prior to an election, many of which were likely still in the process of choosing their candidate, and hoping to gain a better understanding of Obama’s value set. The article is an example of a journalistic source because it examines Obama’s views from an unbiased perspective. The article contains several sources, citing statements from Ward Connerly and John McCain, comments from an NAACP official, and past quotes from Barack Obama. Very notable, however, is the author’s failure to obtain a new comment from Obama at the time of the article. The article is relevant to the issue not only because President Obama has frequently dealt with these programs in the past, but also because he holds a great deal of discretion in determining their future. Therefore, this source can be used to forecast the future of the affirmative action controversy. One could also use this article as a way of drawing attention to President Obama’s seemingly ambivalent stance on the issue. Given that he is a Democrat, most would expect him to be more supportive of programs generally associated with the Democratic Party.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1240/sotomayor-supreme-court-affirmative-action-minority-preferences

This source is a publication from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, in which Americans were polled on their views toward affirmative action policies. The study is an example of an institutional source because it conducted an unbiased survey in an attempt to generate statistical information on the issue. The only source for this study is the opinion of the general public, but this can be altered, sometimes substantially, by the phrasing of a question. The study is useful because it reveals what aspects of affirmative action that citizens support. This study proves that the public is reluctant to support efforts at improving minority status if they are dependant on preferential treatment. However, citizens are in favor of programs that are designed to help women and minorities gain access to jobs and education. This source can be used to argue that the public doesn’t fully understand the issue, as the essence of affirmative action programs is the policy of preferential treatment. More importantly, it can be used as evidence that the public would appreciate an alternative to affirmative action. The public still supports programs that help women and minorities, and many alternatives have been suggested that do just that, without using racial or gender preferences.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07affirm.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255050784-iAiIx/E70YB8X7Wr/wbi0Q

This source is an article from the New York Times contrasting the opinions of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. This article is a journalistic source because the author remains neutral throughout it. The article consists of mostly background information on each justice’s past, and does not cite many interviews; most importantly, the article fails to get quotes from either Justice. However, the author does cite professors and classmates from each justice’s respective alma mater. The article is an important source because the two possess a great deal of authority in deciding the constitutional legitimacy of affirmative action programs. Also, the justices have both had first-hand experiences with affirmative action, and yet hold completely differing views in the debate over it. The article demonstrates the reasons for why not all minorities support the use of affirmative action programs. Thus, this source could help in the argument that people of every background, not merely privileged white males, oppose the principles of affirmative action. More importantly, this source can help calculate what key rulings might be decided by the Court regarding affirmative action. Understanding the arguments of Sotomayor and Thomas is critical to predicting the outcome of future cases, as the two will undoubtedly be the most prominent and influential figures on the bench.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1568439,00.html

This source is a 2006 article from Time magazine exploring alternatives to affirmative action. Although this source originated from a media outlet, it does not belong in a journalistic category. The author, Joe Klein, writes part of the article as an argument in which he suggests “three ways to ensure diversity and repair injustice.” The article uses few sources to support its opinionated portion, but does cite a study from the Department of Education as evidence for the termination of “legacy” admissions at Ivy League schools. This article also references recent court cases, such as Parents Involved v. Seattle, to try to determine the courts opinion on affirmative action. It cites a professor from Yale who believes that the Roberts Court will continue to vote against affirmative action principles. The relevance of the article lies in its overview of two commonly proposed alternatives: selecting applicants on the basis of economic status instead of race and gender, and reforming the educational system to improve inner city school districts. This source can therefore be used to list arguments of those who are in favor of improving upon affirmative action policies. Also, the portion of this article that examines the opinions of the Supreme Court is helpful in foretelling its decisions on the issue of affirmative action.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/

This source is an overview of the 2003 court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court ruled an affirmative action program was acceptable because of the educational opportunities that stem from a more diverse environment. This source stems from an entry of the Oyez Project website, a multimedia archive devoted to the work of the Supreme Court. The project, supported by the National Science Foundation, serves as an institutional source because it has a vested interest in accurately portraying the results of the Supreme Court. The sources of the Oyez Project are court briefings and audio files from the National Archives and Records Administration. This source is helpful because it offers historical context on the affirmative action issue. The ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger marks a departure from the traditional aim of affirmative action, which was to remedy disparities in access to work and education. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that affirmative action programs could now be maintained because of the educational benefits of diversity. This source can be used to prove that the goals of affirmative action have evolved into something else, and argue that the today the said benefits from the programs are not sufficient to warrant their continuation.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article568.pdf

This source is an essay written in the May 2003 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal. It fervently argues for replacing affirmative action with preferential treatment on the basis of economic status, as well as with drastic repairs to the K-12 educational system. The audience of this journal consists of lawyers in the state of Michigan. The essay is written by Chetly Zarko, a freelance investigative writer who has worked on a variety of conservative campaigns, one being the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that banned affirmative action programs in the state. This essay is part of the Michigan Bar Journal’s “Speaking Out” section, which “offers personal opinions on issues of interest and concern to [its] readership.” As a result, this source clearly fits the citizen category. This is a strong source because it eloquently presents key arguments of affirmative action opponents. Zarko argues that by ending all policies that negatively impact minority groups (such as alumni and legacy preferences), and by implementing preferences based on socio-economic standing, a fairer admissions process would result than one that uses racial or gender preferences. This essay can be used to argue the shortcomings of affirmative action, and advocate for the effectiveness of alternatives.

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/hockstader.html

This source is a 2002 Washington Post article reporting on the successes and failures of the top 10% rule in Texas. This article is found on the website for the Affirmative Action and Diversity Project. The website serves as an academic resource, offering a plethora of articles and policy documents, alongside bibliographies of source materials. While the article itself is a journalistic source, the project that it is a part of is an academic source. The sources within the article include a variety of education administrators from the state of Texas. The article is a worthy source because it offers both insight and statistics on a prominent alternative to affirmative action principles. The top 10% rule operates by offering automatic admission for high school students with a GPA in the top 10% of their class. Proponents of the rule argue that it accomplishes the same level of diversity without discriminating on the basis of race. Opponents claim that the rule favors students taking easier classes. Also, students from worse schools are offered automatic admission, which may mean that they don’t perform as well as students from a better school, but who are outside the top 10%. This article can be used to promote the effectiveness of the top 10% rule, as well as prepare against the arguments of those opposed to it.

http://insideoregon.uoregon.edu/university-of-oregons-new-dean-of-students-will-begin-in-may/ (This is not a link to the interview. This is just a short biography on Paul Shang.)

This source is an interview from October, 2009, with Paul Shang, the new Vice President and Dean of Students at the University or Oregon. The interview addresses Shang’s past as a minority in the segregated south, as well as his views on diversity and his long history as an advocate of affirmative action. As a source, this interview falls into the citizen category because Shang is putting forth his personal opinions and life experiences with affirmative action, and because he did not cite any external sources. This interview is a useful source because Dean Shang provides a strong argument for the continued use of affirmative action programs. Furthermore, his personal experiences offer historical context behind affirmative action from a proponent’s perspective. Throughout the interview, Shang references the benefits that he has seen from over 40 years of affirmative action. Besides the enormous growth of women and minorities in the workforce, Shang claims that employment opportunities have actually expanded for everyone. He claims that affirmative action contributed to the downfall of social networks that surrounded industries and often served as prerequisites for employment. This source can be used to address the profound success that affirmative action has had in the past, yet advocate for a reform of the principles today.

For more than 30 years, affirmative action programs have aimed to eradicate institutional discrimination by directly intervening with the hiring practices of employers and the admissions policies of universities. These programs instill diversity by requiring preferential treatment on the basis of race and gender. While controversial, affirmative action resulted in a remarkable increase of female and minority involvement in colleges and the workforce. In the modern era, opponents dispute the need, effectiveness, and legitimacy of these programs. The most prominent argument is that affirmative action fundamentally contradicts its objective by attempting to remedy race and gender bias through further discrimination.

http://www.jofreeman.com/womensociety/institidiscrim.htm

This source is the text of a lecture, delivered several times during the 1970s by renowned feminist Jo Freeman, covering the meaning and the prevalence of institutional discrimination. Freeman’s speech is a useful source because it illustrates a fundamental premise behind affirmative action programs; undoubtedly, the lecture was used to advocate for the continuance of these programs. The lecture is found on Jo Freeman’s website under the category of “Women in Society.” The website is a compilation of articles written by Freeman throughout her career. This source falls into the citizen category because it puts forth an opinion on the issue of affirmative action, instead of an objective analysis. Also, the lecture is rooted mostly in assumptions, and doesn’t depend on factual evidence.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/02/admit

This source is an article reporting on private liberal arts schools that, in an effort to deal with the growing majority of female students on campus, have begun to offer preferential treatment to male applicants. This article is a remarkable source for my paper because it places the issue of affirmative action in an entirely new context. The source comes from Inside Higher Ed, a free online publication that addresses a myriad of issues relating to colleges and universities. The article is a journalistic source because it maintains objectivity throughout its examination of the story, and supports itself through statistics. The article links to several pertinent sites, and quotes more than once a proposal by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the colleges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/us/politics/03affirmative.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

This source is an article from the New York Times offering an analysis of Barack Obama’s stance on the issue of affirmative action. This is relevant to the issue not only because President Obama has frequently dealt with these programs in the past, but also because he holds a great deal of discretion in determining their future. The article is an example of a journalistic source because it examines Obama’s views from an unbiased perspective. The article contains several sources, citing statements from Ward Connerly and John McCain, comments from an NAACP official, and past quotes from Barack Obama. Very notable, however, is the author’s failure to obtain a new comment from Obama at the time of the article.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1240/sotomayor-supreme-court-affirmative-action-minority-preferences

This source is a publication from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, in which Americans were polled on their views toward affirmative action policies. This study is a valuable source because it receives what are arguably paradoxical results from the public, demonstrating some of the confusion and complexity surrounding the issue. The study is an example of an institutional source because it conducted an unbiased survey in an attempt to generate statistical information on the issue. The only source for this study is the opinion of the general public, but this can be altered, sometimes substantially, by the phrasing of a question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07affirm.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255050784-iAiIx/E70YB8X7Wr/wbi0Q

This source is an article from the New York Times contrasting the opinions of Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas. The article is a relevant source because the two possess a lot of authority in deciding the constitutional legitimacy of affirmative action programs. Moreover, the justices have both had first-hand experiences with affirmative action, and yet hold completely differing views in the debate over it. This article is a journalistic source because the author remains neutral throughout it. The article consists of mostly background information on each justice’s past, and does not cite many interviews; most importantly, the article fails to get quotes from either Justice.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1568439,00.html

This source is an article from Time magazine exploring alternatives to affirmative action. The relevance of the article lies in its overview of two commonly proposed alternatives: selecting applicants on the basis of economic status instead of race and gender, and reforming the educational system to improve inner city school districts. Although this source originated from a media outlet, it does not belong in a journalistic category. The author, Joe Klein, writes part of the article as an argument in which he suggests “three ways to ensure diversity and repair injustice.” The article uses few sources to support its opinionated portion, but does cite a study from the Department of Education as evidence for the termination of “legacy” admissions at Ivy League schools.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/

This source is an overview of the 2003 court case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court ruled an affirmative action program was acceptable because of the educational opportunities that stem from a more diverse environment. This source stems from an entry of the Oyez Project website, a multimedia archive devoted to the work of the Supreme Court. The project, supported by the National Science Foundation, serves as an institutional source because it has a vested interest in accurately portraying the results of the Supreme Court. The sources of the Oyez Project are court briefings and audio files from the National Archives and Records Administration.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article568.pdf

This source is an essay written in the Michigan Bar Journal that fervently argues for replacing affirmative action with preferential treatment on the basis of economic status. This is a strong source because it eloquently presents a key argument of affirmative action opponents. The essay is written by Chetly Zarko, a freelance investigative writer who has worked on a variety of conservative campaigns, one being the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that banned affirmative action programs in the state. This essay is part of the Michigan Bar Journal’s “Speaking Out” section, which “offers personal opinions on issues of interest and concern to [its] readership.” As a result, this source clearly fits the citizen category.

http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/docs/hockstader.html

This source is a 2002 Washington Post article reporting on the successes and failures of the top 10% rule in Texas. The article is a worthy source because it offers both insight and statistics on a prominent alternative to affirmative action principles. This article is found on the website for the Affirmative Action and Diversity Project. The website serves as an academic resource, offering a plethora of articles and policy documents, alongside bibliographies of source materials. While the article itself is a journalistic source, the project that it is a part of is an academic source. The sources within the article include a variety of education administrators from the state of Texas.

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2004/01/30/News/Top-10.Percent.Rule.Criticized-593139.shtml

This source is a 2004 article from The Battalion, the student newspaper at Texas A&M University. The article addresses the criticisms of the top 10% rule enacted in 1996 as an alternative to affirmative action programs. The article is an important source because it documents several valid concerns against the top 10% rule. Furthermore, it offers a snapshot of a university affected by the new policy. The article is a journalistic source because of the strict impartiality that the author upholds during the report. The article cites quotes and statistics from university officials, and gathers input from affected students as well.

This image depicts affirmative action advocates as they protest against the Michigan Civil Rights inititiative. The inititiative passed in November of 2006 with a majority of 58%, making Michigan the third state to impose a ban on affirmative action programs. The image stems from the RACE website, a project of the American Anthropological Association. On the site, a lengthy description of affirmative action accompanies the image. The sole purpose of this page is to explain the historical context surrounding the issue. The intent of the photo is not to endorse the demonstrators that it portrays; rather, it is being used to illustrate the controversy that is currently engulfing affirmative action programs. The image captures this quite well. These protestors embody the fervor with which this issue is being debated, representing the opposition to a growing backlash against race-based affirmative action programs. As more and more states begin proposing their own ballot measures banning affirmative action, the contention over the issue—something that is remarkably evident in this image—will continue to intensify.

Aug. 28, 1963 Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, calling for an end to discrimination in every form, and a day in which Americans “transform the jangling discords of [this] nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.”

July 2, 1964 Congress passes the Civil Rights Act with a Senate vote of 73-27 . The legislation represented the largest effort by the U.S. government to combat discrimination since the Reconstruction efforts of nearly a hundred years prior.

June 4, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a remarkable speech to Howard University graduates, redefined affirmative action. Johnson claimed that it “is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity…not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

Sept. 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive order 11246, establishing guidelines and enforcement mechanisms for affirmative action programs. The order required institutions to implement plans increasing the participation of minorities if studies deemed them to be underrepresented.

Dec. 23, 1969 President Nixon signed the Philadelphia Plan, ordering federal contractors “to show affirmative action [in meeting] the goal of increasing minority employment.” In an effort to combat the rigid discrimination of trade unions in Philadelphia, the plan called for contractors to adopt “numerical goals and timetables” for hiring African Americans.

June 28, 1978 The Supreme Court declared in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that the use of racial quotas in college admissions was unconstitutional. The Court decided that race would remain as one of several criteria in the admissions process.

June 27, 1979 The Supreme Court ruled in United Steelworkers of America v. Weber that racial quota systems in the private sector do not violate title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race.

Nov. 5, 1996 California voters passed Proposition 209 with a majority of 54%, becoming the first state to ban affirmative action programs. The law required that the state “not discriminate against, or give preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

Nov. 4, 2008 Nebraska and Colorado proposed ballot measures that would ban affirmative action programs. The Nebraska measure passed with a majority of 58%, while the nearly identical version in Colorado lost by a margin of 2 percentage points.

Further Information

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2008/01/24/naacp-opposes-petition-end-discrimination-based-af/

This article from the Columbia Missourian, written in January of 2008, covers the efforts of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative to pass a ban on affirmative action. Attempting to replicate the success of Nebraska’s ban that had passed two months before, the Initiative faced stern opposition from the NAACP. This article encapsulates the debate over affirmative action, providing basic arguments from both sides of the issue.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1568439,00.html

This Time Magazine article, written by Joe Klein in 2006,  analyzes the opinion of the Supreme Court on affirmative action, and questions whether such programs are the best solution to racial inequality. Klein writes from a liberal standpoint, and proposes alternatives that he feels can supersede race-based affirmative action.

“Supreme Court Finds Bias Against White Firefighters – NYTimes.com,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html.

This New York Times article reports on the most recent  Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of affirmative action. The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision against the affirmative action efforts. The case is noteworthy because Sonia Sotomayor, the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court, resided over the same case one year ago, and came to a different conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07affirm.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255050784-iAiIx/E70YB8X7Wr/wbi0Q

This New York Times article examines both the similarities and distinctions between  Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. While they share many of the same experiences as ethnic minorities, Thomas and Sotomayor represent very different perspectives on issues of race and discrimination.

http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/enda.asp

This is a summary of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009; it is provided by the Human Rights Campaign website. Although clearly in support of the Act, the HRC offers an accurate description of its contents.  The legislation would expand current laws to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation. The bill was introduced in June, and is currently moving through committees in both the House and the Senate.