Search
Account
Search
Account
The term affirmative action is used to designate policies that allocate resources and opportunities to beneficiaries who belong to social groups that are underrepresented in a number of institutions or branches of human activity. Ethnicity, race, gender, religion, and caste are the most commonly employed group categories in such policies. The resources and opportunities distributed by affirmative action include political participation, access to education, admission to institutions of higher education, health services, employment, business opportunities, material goods, social protection networks, and cultural and historical recognition.
For more background information, see Wikipedia, or the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity.
MIT Libraries catalog
Handbook on Economics of Discrimination and Affirmative Action by
This Handbook deals with theoretical and empirical evidence on the economics of discrimination and affirmative action across the world, assessed over a variety of social identities, such as caste, race, ethnicity, gender, disability, age, tribal status. It also outlines methodological advances in this area, with plenty of additional references for the interested reader. It combines theoretical frameworks developed in the West with historical writings about discrimination and social justice from primarily Indian philosophers, aspects which are typically not found under one roof. It offers the reader a combination of insights into theories across a range of disciplines, as well as evidence, data -both quantitative and qualitative, in addition to the latest methodological advances in the estimation of discrimination - econometric, experimental, mixed-methods.
The Death of Affirmative Action? Racialized framing and the fight against racial preference in college admissions by
Affirmative action in US college admissions has inspired fierce debate as well as several US Supreme Court cases. In this significant study, leading US professors J. Scott Carter and Cameron D. Lippard provide an in-depth examination of the issue using sociological, policy and legal perspectives to frame both pro- and anti-affirmative action arguments, within past and present Supreme Court cases. With affirmative action policy under constant attack, this is a crucial book that not only explains the state of this policy but also further deconstructs the state of race and racism in American society today.
Making Sense of Affirmative Action by
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen here poses the question: "Is affirmative action morally (un)justifiable?" As a phrase that frequently surfaces in major headlines, affirmative action is a highly controversial and far-reaching issue, yet most of the recent scholarly literature surrounding the topic tends to focus on defending one side or another in a particular case of affirmative action. Lippert-Rasmussen instead takes a wide-angle view, addressing each of the prevailing contemporary arguments for and against affirmative action. In his introduction, he proposes an amended definition of affirmative action and considers what forms, from quotas to outreach strategies, may fall under this revised definition. He then analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each position, relative to each other, and applies recent discussions in political philosophy to assess if and how each argument might justify different conclusions given different cases or philosophical frameworks. Each chapter investigates an argument for or against affirmative action. The six arguments for it consist of compensation, anti-discrimination, equality of opportunity, role model, diversity, and integration. The five arguments against it are reverse discrimination, stigma, mismatch, publicity, and merit. Lippert-Rasmussen also expands the discussion to include affirmative action for groups beyond the prototypical examples of African Americans and women, and to consider health and minority languages as possible criteria for inclusion in affirmative action initiatives. Based on the comparative strength of anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity arguments, Making Sense of Affirmative Action ultimately makes a case in favor of affirmative action; however, its originality lies in Lippert-Rasmussen's careful exploration of moral justifiability as a contextual evaluative measure and his insistence that complexity and a comparative focus are inherent to this important issue.
A Legacy of Discrimination: The essential constitutionality of affirmative action by
A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective.Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address our nation's often horrifying discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the past sixty years to far greater minorityrepresentation across a vast range of industries, government positions, and academic institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the United States continue to fall under assault.In A Legacy of Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of America's leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy's history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades. They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action's original intent and impact, wemust re-acquaint ourselves with the era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century, 1954's Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case lawthat had the intent and effect of constraining social, educational, and economic progress for Black people and other minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected. Further, they explain why Americans must viewaffirmative action as a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our nation.A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation's historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history, this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has accomplished more than most people realizein making America a fairer and more inclusive country.
Undermining Racial Justice by
Over the last sixty years, administrators on college campuses nationwide have responded to black campus activists by making racial inclusion and inequality compatible. This bold argument is at the center of Matthew Johnson's powerful and controversial book. Focusing on the University of Michigan, often a key talking point in national debates about racial justice thanks to the contentious Gratz v. Bollinger 2003 Supreme Court case, Johnson argues that UM leaders incorporated black student dissent selectively into the institution's policies, practices, and values. This strategy was used to prevent activism from disrupting the institutional priorities that campus leaders deemed more important than racial justice. Despite knowing that racial disparities would likely continue, Johnson demonstrates that these administrators improbably saw themselves as champions of racial equity. What Johnson contends in Undermining Racial Justice is not that good intentions resulted in unforeseen negative consequences, but that the people who created and maintained racial inequities at premier institutions of higher education across the United States firmly believed they had good intentions in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The case of the University of Michigan fits into a broader pattern at elite colleges and universities and is a cautionary tale for all in higher education. As Matthew Johnson illustrates, inclusion has always been a secondary priority, and, as a result, the policies of the late 1970s and 1980s ushered in a new and enduring era of racial retrenchment on campuses nationwide.
Is Affirmative Action Fair? The myth of equity in college admissions by
Affirmative action in college admissions - considering whether an applicant is part of an underrepresented group when making selection decisions - has long been a topic of heated public debate. Some argue that it undermines racial equity. Others advocate for its ability to promote equal opportunity in a racially unequal society. Who is right? Natasha Warikoo dives into the arguments for and against a policy that has made it to the US Supreme Court many times. She digs into the purposes of higher education and the selection process itself to argue that it is a mistake to equate college admissions with personal merit and reward. College admissions should be based on furthering the mission of higher education: contributing to our shared democracy and to the human condition. Ultimately, Warikoo concludes that a focus on individual fairness conceals much more important questions about justice. No matter what their perspective, readers will find themselves thinking anew and asking the deeper questions that underlie this emotive debate.​
Mismatch:how affirmative action hurts students it's intended to help, and why universities won't admit it by
(book available via ILB) The debate over affirmative action has raged for over four decades, with little give on either side. Most agree that it began as noble effort to jump-start racial integration; many believe it devolved into a patently unfair system of quotas and concealment. Now, with the Supreme Court set to rule on a case that could sharply curtail the use of racial preferences in American universities, law professor Richard Sander and legal journalist Stuart Taylor offer a definitive account of what affirmative action has become, showing that while the objective is laudable, the effects have been anything but. Sander and Taylor have long admired affirmative action's original goals, but after many years of studying racial preferences, they have reached a controversial but undeniable conclusion: that preferences hurt underrepresented minorities far more than they help them. At the heart of affirmative action's failure is a simple phenomenon called mismatch. Using dramatic new data and numerous interviews with affected former students and university officials of color, the authors show how racial preferences often put students in competition with far better-prepared classmates, dooming many to fall so far behind that they can never catch up. Mismatch largely explains why, even though black applicants are more likely to enter college than whites with similar backgrounds, they are far less likely to finish; why there are so few black and Hispanic professionals with science and engineering degrees and doctorates; why black law graduates fail bar exams at four times the rate of whites; and why universities accept relatively affluent minorities over working class and poor people of all races. Sander and Taylor believe it is possible to achieve the goal of racial equality in higher education, but they argue that alternative policies -- such as full public disclosure of all preferential admission policies, a focused commitment to improving socioeconomic diversity on campuses, outreach to minority communities, and a renewed focus on K-12 schooling -- will go farther in achieving that goal than preferences, while also allowing applicants to make informed decisions. Bold, controversial, and deeply researched, Mismatch calls for a renewed examination of this most divisive of social programs -- and for reforms that will help realize the ultimate goal of racial equality.
MIT Libraries collection
Proquest Newsstand database
For more news sources, see our News Guide
This page was created in August 2023. It will be updated periodically. Suggestions are welcome!