Affirmative action hasn't worked.
Myth: Affirmative Action hasn't worked.
Fact: Statistics show gains for all discriminated groups.
Summary
Affirmative action has helped the income, promotion and labor
force participation rates of both women and minorities. For example,
between 1982 and 1995, the percentage of female managers and professionals
in the U.S. rose from 40.5 to 48.0 percent; blacks from 5.5 to
7.5 percent, and Hispanics from 5.2 to 7.6 percent. By comparison,
these groups form 51.2 percent, 12.6 percent, and 10.2 percent
of the population, respectively. Progress has been steady, but
still incomplete.
Argument
Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to
achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few
even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of
the statistics, however, shows that both minorities and women
have made substantial progress towards equality in the last several
decades.
Before reviewing the relevant statistics, it would be helpful
to build a timeline of important dates in affirmative action history.
An affirmative action timeline
In 1961, John F. Kennedy signed an executive order that intended
the end of discrimination in federal contracting. "The Contractor
will 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." (1) The
act did not mandate quotas, only discrimination-free employment
practices.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 broadened this policy. Title IV declared
that "No person in the United States shall, on the grounds
of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation
in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
The subject of first quotas arose in 1965, when President Johnson
gave the commencement address at Harvard University:
"You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled
by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line
of a race and then say, 'you're free to compete with all the others,'
and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus
it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our
citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates…"
Not long afterwards, Johnson signed an order "to promote
the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a
positive, continuing program…" (2) In 1967, this order
was expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.
In 1971, the Department of Labor under Richard Nixon issued an
order requiring all federal contractors to develop "an acceptable
affirmative action program," including "an analysis
of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization
of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables
to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed
to correct the deficiencies." (3) By now, affirmative action
goals had become the full-fledged policy of U.S. government contracting.
The results of affirmative action
A 1995 study by Murrell and Jones found that affirmative action
has increased the representation of women and minorities across
all levels of employment in the U.S. and within organizations
that were once exclusively male. They also found it resulted in
higher employment participation rates, increased earnings, and
gains in educational attainment for women and minorities. (4)
The success of affirmative action can be seen in the following
chart. The highest paying jobs in the U.S. are managerial and
professional, and the percentage of women and minorities being
hired in these jobs has been rising:
Employment level of various groups in managerial and professional
specialty occupations (5)
Year Female Black Hispanic*
----------------------------------
1982 40.5% 5.5% 5.2%
1983 40.9 5.6 5.2
1984 41.6 5.7 5.5
1985 42.7 5.9 5.7
1986 43.4 6.0 6.0
1987 44.3 6.2 6.3
1988 44.7 6.1 6.4
1989 45.2 6.1 6.3
1990 45.8 6.4 6.8
1991 46.3 6.4 7.0
1992 47.3 6.6 7.3
1993 47.8 6.8 7.7
1994 48.1 7.1 7.7
1995 48.0 7.5 7.6
*Includes Spanish, Cuban, Puerto Rican and Mexican Americans
By comparison, women comprised 51.2 percent of the 1995 U.S.
population; blacks comprised 12.6 percent, and Hispanics, 10.2
percent. (6)
A few caveats are in order, however. The above chart does not
show how these groups are doing in general; it only shows how
each group's best wage earners are doing. At the bottom end of
the scale, members in all these groups are losing ground. Another
important note is that for all the above progress, these groups
are still running into a glass ceiling when it comes to being
promoted to upper executive positions. According to the 1995 Glass
Ceiling Commission report, 95% of senior level managers in Fortune
1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service industries are white men,
despite their being only 33 percent of the population.
Let's explore the benefits of affirmative action for women and
blacks separately:
Affirmative action for women
An ACLU briefing paper on affirmative action reports: "Six
million women have received opportunities in employment and education
directly because of affirmative action programs. Between 1970
and 1990, the proportion of women physicians doubled from 7.6%
to 16.9%. From 1972 to 1979 -- the years when affirmative action
programs were most vigorously enforced -- the number of women
becoming accountants, lawyers and judges, and school administrators
increased substantially. And during the last 10 years the overall
number of black professional women grew 125%." (7)
The following chart shows the leading economic indicators for
women since 1959. Keep in mind that affirmative action for women
did not start until the late 60s; it was most vigorously enforced
in the 70s, and less enforced in the 80s. Also note that these
numbers do not tell their own story; they require further analysis.
Female economic indicators, individual (Median income: 15 years
and older, 1994 CPI-U-X1 adjusted dollars. Female labor force
participation rate: 16 years and older. Income ratio: full-time,
year-round female to male median earnings) (8)
Poverty Unempl. Labor Median FT, YR male/
Year Rate Rate Partic. Income female ratio
--------------------------------------------------------
1959 NA 5.9% 35.0% $5,736 NA
1960 NA 5.9 35.5 5,804 .607
1961 NA 7.2 35.4 5,832 .592
1962 NA 6.2 35.6 6,064 .593
1963 NA 6.5 35.8 6,106 .589
1964 NA 6.2 36.3 6,372 .591
1965 NA 5.5 37.1 6,591 .599
1966 16.3% 4.8 38.3 6,896 .576
1967 15.8 5.2 39.0 7,353 .578
1968 14.3 4.8 39.6 7,937 .582
1969 13.6 4.7 40.7 8,019 .589
1970 14.0 5.9 40.8 8,027 .594
1971 14.1 6.9 40.4 8,280 .595
1972 13.4 6.6 41.0 8,675 .579
1973 12.5 6.0 42.0 8,779 .566
1974 12.9 6.7 42.6 8,801 .588
1975 13.8 9.3 42.0 8,926 .588
1976 13.4 8.6 43.2 8,922 .602
1977 13.0 8.2 44.5 9,241 .589
1978 13.0 7.2 46.4 8,932 .594
1979 13.2 6.8 47.5 8,716 .597
1980 14.7 7.4 47.7 8,860 .602
1981 15.8 7.9 48.0 8,978 .592
1982 16.5 9.4 47.7 9,126 .617
1983 16.8 9.2 48.0 9,402 .636
1984 15.9 7.6 49.5 9,796 .637
1985 15.6 7.4 50.4 9,940 .646
1986 15.2 7.1 51.4 10,290 .643
1987 15.0 6.2 52.5 10,821 .652
1988 14.5 5.6 53.4 11,129 .660
1989 14.4 5.4 54.3 11,502 .687
1990 15.2 5.5 54.3 11,418 .716
1991 16.0 6.4 53.7 11,399 .699
1992 16.6 7.0 53.8 11,317 .708
1993 16.9 6.6 54.1 11,329 .715
1994 16.3 6.0 55.3 11,466 .720
Two things stand out in this chart. First, the percentage of women
joining the labor force has grown substantially, from 36 to 55
percent between 1964 and 1994. Second, women made roughly 59 cents
to every man's dollar for over 20 years -- until 1982, when that
ratio suddenly began rising. Conservatives would like to credit
Reaganomics for this second trend, hoping to disprove the supposed
benefits of affirmative action. But the real reason is that it
took women time to climb the promotion ladder.
To see this point more clearly, recall that there are two types of jobs
in our economy. The first group is managerial/professional jobs, which are
the best paying. In 1994, they comprised 27.5 percent
of all jobs in the U.S. (9) The second group is all other jobs,
which generally pay lower and comprise about three fourths of
all jobs. Now, before women can be hired to managerial/professional
jobs, they must qualify for them first -- which generally means
they must attend college. But college acceptance practices have
also been discriminatory, and affirmative action programs had
to fight this fight as well. After women began graduating in greater
numbers, they required yet more time to rise up through the ranks
to reach the managerial/professional jobs. For these reasons,
we see a long lag between the implementation of affirmative action
and its results.
The growing percentage of female managers also has a snowballing
effect. They are less likely to discriminate against other women
at hiring time; therefore, they create larger talent pools of
qualified females from which to promote more managers. But again,
this dynamic took time to accelerate.
Affirmative action for blacks
For blacks, the history of affirmative action reads a bit
differently. Blacks have always worked the nation's lowest-paying
and most menial jobs. Unlike women, blacks were underrepresented
not only in managerial/professional jobs, but ordinary middle
class jobs as well. Because the qualifications for the latter
are less than the former, black gains were accomplished more easily
and quickly. Their relatively quicker success also owed much to
the fact that affirmative action began addressing racial discrimination
many years before gender discrimination.
The following chart shows the leading economic indicators for
blacks since 1959:
Black economic indicators, individual (Median income: 15 years
and older, 1994 CPI-U-X1 adjusted dollars) (10)
Poverty Unempl. Median Percent of
Year Rate Rate Income white median
--------------------------------------------------
1959 55.1% NA $5,998 44.6%
1960 NA 10.2% 6,200 47.0
1961 NA NA 6,525 48.6
1962 NA NA 6,814 49.4
1963 NA NA 7,423 53.7
1964 NA NA 7,929 56.2
1965 NA NA 8,155 55.4
1966 41.8 7.3 8,837 60.0
1967 39.3 7.4 9,443 62.9
1968 34.7 6.7 9,918 63.2
1969 32.2 6.4 10,430 65.8
1970 33.5 8.2 10,858 69.1
1971 32.5 9.9 10,632 67.4
1972 33.3 10.0 11,399 69.3
1973 31.4 8.9 11,555 70.1
1974 30.3 9.9 10,797 68.1
1975 31.3 14.8 10,693 68.9
1976 31.1 13.1 10,983 70.3
1977 31.3 13.1 11,059 70.2
1978 30.6 11.9 10,908 70.3
1979 31.0 11.3 10,783 71.8
1980 32.5 14.3 10,520 71.0
1981 34.2 14.2 10,367 70.7
1982 35.6 18.9 10,372 70.0
1983 35.7 19.5 10,283 68.2
1984 33.8 15.9 10,529 68.3
1985 31.3 15.1 10,882 69.3
1986 31.1 14.5 11,020 68.0
1987 32.4 13.0 11,425 69.5
1988 31.3 11.7 11,859 69.7
1989 30.7 11.4 12,052 69.7
1990 31.9 11.3 11,711 68.7
1991 32.7 12.4 11,471 68.8
1992 33.4 14.1 11,252 68.5
1993 33.1 12.9 11,614 70.7
1994 30.6 11.5* 12,248 74.1*
*Cannot be compared to previous years.
As these charts show, affirmative action has indeed been successful
in helping women and minorities; the job just isn't finished yet.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. John F. Kennedy's Executive Order 10925, establishing the
President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, March 1961.
2. Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246, 1965.
3. U.S. Department of Labor, Revised Order No. 4, December, 1971.
4. A. J. Murrell & R. Jones, The paradox of affirmative
action: Examining its impact and future for women and minorities
in employment. Manuscript submitted for publication. Reported
in Faye Crosby, Audrey Murrell, John Dovidio, Rupert Nacoste,
Anthony Pratkanis, Janet Helms, "Affirmative Action: Who
Benefits?", a briefing paper of the American Psychological
Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues,
Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues.
5. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series ID: lfu112500000000,
lfu112500000002, lfu112500000030, lfu112500000050, lfu112500000060,
lfu112500000070, lfu112500000080.
6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,
P25-1095, P25-1104 and unpublished data.
7. ACLU Briefing Paper on California affirmative action.
8. Poverty rate: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Income and Poverty,
1993. Unemployment rate: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series
ID: lfu21000002. Civilian employment/population ratio: U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Series ID : lfu1600002. Income and income
ratio: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,
Series P60.
9. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Monthly
Earnings, 1994.
10. Poverty: Figures before 1990 from U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1960-89. Figures from 1990 on from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Unemployment: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Income: U.S. Bureau
of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P60. Percentage
of white median: derived from same income table by Steve Kangas.