This paper examines affirmative action as a human resource management issue, tracing its origins from the systemic racial discrimination endured by African Americans through the civil rights era to the executive orders issued by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s. It explains the conceptual rationale for affirmative action programs and distinguishes between mandatory public-sector compliance and voluntary private-sector adoption. The paper then analyzes how HRM professionals navigate affirmative action in the contexts of recruitment, EEOC liability, employee retention, and organizational culture change, with particular attention to managing workplace diversity and the attitudinal barriers minority employees may face even in ostensibly compliant organizations.
The paper demonstrates policy application analysis: taking a broad legal and social policy framework (affirmative action) and systematically translating it into specific professional responsibilities across multiple HRM domains. By citing both legal sources and organizational behavior texts, the author bridges legal compliance and management practice effectively.
The paper opens with a historical narrative establishing the moral and legal backdrop for affirmative action, then defines the policy and its origins in presidential executive orders. Subsequent sections pivot to HRM practice, covering public versus private sector distinctions, recruitment and liability risks, and finally the more nuanced challenge of shaping organizational culture and managing attitudinal bias. Each section builds on the last, moving from history to law to management application.
The long history of the United States includes a shameful three-century-long period during which African people were rounded up in their native lands, bound in shackles, forced into the putrid, rat-infested holds of ships, and transported to North America, where they were worked — often to death — as slaves, especially in the southern states. Despite the fact that the institution of slavery officially ended with the 1865 enactment of the Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment, it would be an entire century before Black Americans received the full rights of citizenship and the same protections of law to which they had officially been entitled since the era immediately following the end of the American Civil War.
During that time, they endured systemic discrimination, frequently with the outright support or tacit approval of local, state, and federal authorities, including law enforcement (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009). Black Americans were routinely denied their most basic constitutionally protected rights, and many southern states enacted so-called Jim Crow Laws — expressly designed and intended to prevent Black Americans from exercising their rights, particularly their voting rights. Even in northern states, public facilities remained largely segregated, and Black Americans were excluded from educational, employment, and housing opportunities throughout the country (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009).
By the civil rights era, the infiltration of racist hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan into local police agencies prompted federal authorities to intervene. The governors of several southern states had to be confronted by armed U.S. marshals and National Guard soldiers dispatched by the Kennedy administration before they would step away from the doors of public universities when the first Black students attempted to exercise their constitutional right to equal education — a right confirmed years earlier in the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, which finally reversed the 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that had established the doctrine of "separate but equal" (Goldfield, Abbot, Argersinger, et al., 2005).
The securing of civil rights and equality under the law that Black Americans finally achieved during the 1960s was a monumental step forward in race relations and in national morality. Nevertheless, it was undeniable that the previous history of outright discrimination and racial prejudice against Black Americans and other minorities placed members of those communities at a tremendous disadvantage when competing for educational and vocational opportunities against members of the majority who had never suffered those types or degrees of deprivation.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the first executive order articulating the requirement for government contractors to "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" and "not [to] discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009). Four years later, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a related executive order instructing the federal government to "promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency" (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009). Since then, affirmative action programs have evolved to provide expanded opportunities to Black Americans and members of other minority groups in education, employment, and housing.
In principle, the concept of affirmative action holds that members of minority groups who endured long-term discrimination and exclusion from fair opportunities cannot fully capitalize on newly available equal opportunities. Generations of discrimination and de facto exclusion from some of the most important aspects of American society created an insurmountable structural disadvantage. Affirmative action programs are therefore expressly designed to compensate for and offset some of those disadvantages, providing a more level playing field on which minority group members can compete for opportunities in education, housing, and employment.
Technically, compliance with affirmative action policies is only a formal mandatory requirement in the public sector (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009); it is not binding on private sector hiring organizations. On the other hand, affirmative action is closely related to the formal mandatory requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Acts of 1990 and 2008. Compliance with formal prohibitions against workplace discrimination — in hiring, firing, promotion, benefits, and all other aspects of employee relations — is an important responsibility of all employing organizations in the United States. Violations of those requirements are monitored, investigated, and prosecuted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the independent federal enforcement agency created by the Johnson administration in 1965 (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009).
In the public sector, there is little practical distinction between the requirements under EEOC provisions and affirmative action, because veterans, members of minority groups, and disabled persons are entitled under federal law to certain preferential hiring policies intended to promote equal opportunity for those whose circumstances justify such accommodations (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009; Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). Human resource management professionals working in the public sector must therefore be thoroughly familiar with the specific ways that applicable laws require them to handle employment applications from eligible affirmative action beneficiaries.
In the private sector, affirmative action is a recommended policy rather than one requiring mandatory compliance (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2009; Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). As a result, private sector HR professionals typically encounter affirmative action issues primarily in relation to managing workplace diversity rather than formal legal compliance. Nevertheless, numerous delicate issues can arise in connection with affirmative action that require expert handling by human resource departments to avoid potential consequences in the realms of civil liability, recruitment, retention, and the long-term maintenance of a healthy organizational culture.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.