Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
It was this Executive Order that required all entities doing business with the federal government to agree that, by doing so, that they would not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin but the Executive Order went further and required that such entities agree to take steps to ensure adequate representation where it is found that there is an underrepresentation of women and other minorities. The terms of Title VII prohibit discrimination but it does not impose affirmative duties. Therein lays the essential difference affirmative action as dictated by Executive Order and the statutory provisions of Title VII.
Under the terms of the Executive Order, which is enforced by several offices of the federal government but enforced against employers through the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012), entities that fail to comply are debarred from further participation in government contracts and funding. Affirmative action requires that entities must develop a written affirmative action plan and that such plan be put in place within120 days of the entity beginning its agreement with the federal government. The required contents of such plans are highly detailed and governed by the rules set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations and findings of non-compliance in the case of employers are administered through the Department of Labor. The sanctions available include publishing the names of non-compiling entities; recommending that proceedings be instituted under Title VII; or requesting that...
Each of the sanctions is considered as a last resort and compliance officers are encouraged to negotiate a settlement short of imposing any sanctions.
Those affected by affirmative action failures are not restricted to waiting for the government to impose sanctions upon non-compiling entities. Under the terms of Title VII, private citizens are empowered to seek redress in the federal courts and, historically, the decisions of the federal courts have played an important role in shaping the application of affirmative action.
Since its inception through Executive Order the affirmative action program has been controversial and its practical effectiveness remains questionable but, in concept, the program promotes an ideal that seeks equality between the various segments of society. Today, affirmative action largely performs its function in the background as public interest in the program has waned but it remains an important part of the federal government's civil rights directive.
References
Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq (1964).
Exec. Order No. 11246, 30 FR 12319, 12935, CFR, 1964-1965.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Retrieved from United States Department of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/
Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action The American Civil War ended an African holocaust that had lasted almost three centuries, devastating generations of human beings. It took most of the next century for decedents of the Africans enslaved in the American States to enjoy any of the actual freedoms and rights that were supposed to have been guaranteed to them after 1865. In many respects, contemporary American culture still features residual consequences of Slavery in
Affirmative action policies grew out of a need to address the historic discrimination against minorities and women. Since its inception, affirmative action has helped open the door for many minorities seeking gainful employment and higher education. However, the same policies have also spawned charges of reverse discrimination against others and, paradoxically, of harming the very people they were intended to help. This paper looks at whether affirmative action policies remain relevant
Affirmative Action: Doing More Harm Than Good Today There was a time in America's not-too-distant past when affirmative action programs were necessary to address the inequalities in access to education and employment that were institutionalized throughout the country. Today, though, the civil rights movement is over and the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that all U.S. citizens enjoy the full range of protections under the law, including the Bill of Rights. Indeed, some
This is a particular problem at the nation's colleges and universities. This has become so much of an issue that law suits and verdicts have been handed down in some states. One of the most famous cases to date involved the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law school policies. These cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In 1997, Jennifer Gratz, a white woman, sued the University of
In addition to changes in admission policies at universities, new workshops in education are beginning to address this issue head on, with teaching participants being taught that American history and education are both "written from the perspective of whites and that laws and policies benefit whites while putting minorities at an immediate disadvantage." (Fernandez, 1) This has helped to redirect the perspective on Affirmative Action within the profession, where
367) According to Sander, none of these questions have been asked effectively and therefore we as a nation continue to believe that affirmative action is a necessary social development for the creation of a more representative society, where disenfranchisement must be answered by active plans, policies and laws. Few of us would enthusiastically support preferential admission policies if we did not believe they played a powerful, irreplaceable role in giving nonwhites