Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Affirmative action in Arizona

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public Policy Logo-one line.pngin Arizona

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you have any questions or comments, contact us.

Affirmative action in Arizona
Civil Liberties Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
General information
Public four-year schools:
3
Number considering race:
0
State affirmative action law:
Article II, Section 36, Arizona State Constitution
State agency:
Arizona Civil Rights Division
Affirmative action in other states
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming
Public Policy Logo-one line.png
Affirmative action • Gratz v. Bollinger • Grutter v. Bollinger • Fisher v. University of Texas


Affirmative action in Arizona refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Arizona to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[1]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

As of March 2015, 109 out of 577 public four-year universities across the country reported that they considered race in admissions. This practice has been banned in eight states. Meanwhile, 28 states require affirmative action plans in either public employment or apprenticeships. Affirmative action programs that grant racial preferences have come under scrutiny in the courts for potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[2][3]

The following information details the use of affirmative action in universities and employment in Arizona, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Arizona is one of eight states that have banned the consideration of race in university admissions and public employment.

    • The effects of affirmative action policies are contested. Proponents argue that affirmative action diversifies selective institutions and provides more opportunities to minorities. Opponents argue that implementing policies that favor some groups requires discrimination against others and that these policiesmay harm individuals they are meant to help.

    Background

    The first reference to affirmative action was made by President John F. Kennedy (D) in 1961 in an executive order directing 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." While there had previously been efforts by the federal government to end racial discrimination, the order marked the first instance of an active approach to promoting equal opportunity.[2][4][5][6]

    Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964

    As the Civil Rights Movement grew, the federal government took on an increasing role in preventing discrimination and bolstering minority numbers in workplaces and universities. President Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, some still felt that preventing discrimination was not enough, so President Johnson issued an executive order that created the means to enforce affirmative action policies for the first time. Of their own initiative, many colleges and universities nationwide also adopted affirmative action policies to increase minority enrollment.[2][4][6][7][8]

    The use of affirmative action programs was initially intended to be temporary. However, over time the goals of affirmative action policies shifted from equality of opportunity to the achievement of equal representation and outcomes for minorities at all levels of society, a more ambiguous target. Furthermore, lawsuits have been brought against institutions utilizing affirmative action policies, citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that promoting diversity, rather than compensating for historical injustices, is the constitutional goal of affirmative action. In its 2013 ruling on affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court also placed the burden on universities to prove that no viable race-neutral alternatives exist when they use racial preferences in admissions to increase diversity.[4][5][9]

    In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions in a June 29, 2023, decision. The ruling explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.[10][11]

    Arizona Civil Rights Amendment

    The Arizona Civil Rights Amendment appeared on the ballot in the November 2, 2010, election. The question was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, proposing to ban preferential treatment and discrimination in public education, employment and contracting. Voters approved the amendment by over 300,000 votes, making Arizona the sixth state to enact such a measure. The approved ballot measure added a new section to Arizona's state constitution, Section 36 of Article II.[12]

    Key terms

    The following terms are helpful in understanding affirmative action policy:

    • Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of some individuals or groups based on federally-protected traits, such as age, race/ethnicity and gender.[13][14]
    • Preferential treatment occurs when an applicant is more likely to be selected than another applicant with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race and ethnicity.[15][16][17]
    • Reverse discrimination is, according to Dictionary.com, unequal treatment or discrimination based on protected traits of "members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies" favoring historically disadvantaged groups, with the intent of remedying past societal discrimination.[18][19]
    • Equal employment opportunity is a commitment employers make to refrain from employment practices that are discriminatory, either directly (disparate treatment) or indirectly (disparate impact). According to Study.com, an equal employment opportunity policy is intended to ensure that "certain classes of people who have been discriminated against in the past are not subjected to adverse treatment" based on protected traits.[20][21]
    • Diversity means the representation of individuals of a variety of backgrounds in terms of characteristics such as national origin, race and ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status.[22][23][24]
    • The mismatch effect refers to the theory that when an elite school extends a large preference to a student due to his race, athletic ability or connection to alumni, that student is less prepared for the rigor of the classes and suffers academically, though that student would perhaps thrive at a somewhat less elite school.[25][26]
    • Racial quotas are hiring or admissions policies requiring that a specified number or percentage of minority group members be hired or admitted. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court outlawed the use of strict racial quotas.[27]
    • Ratchet effect/cascade effect refers to a phenomenon in which actors do not have an incentive to improve a situation even if they easily could.[28][29][30]

    University admissions

    See also: Higher education in Arizona

    Affirmative action in university admissions is a separate matter from affirmative action in employment that operates under different rules and regulations. Federal law requires government contractors and other departments and agencies receiving federal funding to develop and implement affirmative action plans for the hiring process. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and must utilize affirmative action in their employment practices. However, many private colleges and universities across the country have also implemented similar measures in their admissions processes. These actions are typically voluntary, although a handful of states have adopted rules that require state universities to take affirmative action in admissions.[2][4][31]

    Affirmative action admissions programs were undertaken by public and private universities alike, beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some universities initially established quotas in order to achieve a demographically diverse student body; these quotas were outlawed by the United States Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Today, a common form of affirmative action in college admissions is that of racial preferences. A preference occurs when a group of applicants is more likely to be admitted than other applicants with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race or ethnicity. Preferences are also sometimes extended towards women, athletes, and children of alumni. The use of racial preferences may be related to college selectivity: scholars such as law professor Richard Sander have found that preferences are strongest at elite institutions.[2][32][33][34]

    Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions. As of March 2015, Arizona was one of these states. In 2012, voters approved the Arizona Civil Rights Amendment, which amended Article II of the Arizona Constitution to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination in public university admissions. Due to the ban, none of Arizona's three public four-year universities reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.[12]

    Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Arizona
    School Race/Ethnicity is... School selectivity*
    Very important Important Considered Not considered
    Arizona State University
    {{{1}}}
    		 Less selective
    Northern Arizona University
    {{{1}}}
    		 Less selective
    University of Arizona
    {{{1}}}
    		 Somewhat selective
    Sources: The College Board, "Big Future," accessed March 30, 2015. Reproduced with permission.
    CollegeData, "College 411," accessed March 30, 2015
    *Note: This scale of college selectivity comes from The College Board and is measured as follows: Most selective, less than 25 percent admitted; Very selective, 25 percent to 50 percent admitted; Somewhat selective, 50 percent to 75 percent admitted; Less selective, more than 75 percent admitted; Open admission, all or most admitted.


    About the data
    Information on which colleges consider race in admissions came from individual college profiles provided by two websites that aim to assist students in choosing a college: The College Board and CollegeData. Such information was reported to The College Board by the colleges themselves. Note that schools may have updated their policies since reporting them. To see the data:
    1. College Board: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Click "Applying" on the side menu and scroll down. Listed will be several criteria of admission into the college, separated by importance. If Race/Ethnicity is not listed, it was not reported as considered by the college's admissions officers.
    2. CollegeData: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Scroll down to the section titled "Selection of Students" to see a chart of admission criteria ranked from "Very Important" to "Not Considered."

    Employment

    According to Business and Legal Resources, 28 states have passed their own laws requiring the development of affirmative action plans by state employers or apprenticeship programs. Affirmative action plans are management tools that outline efforts made to increase the proportions of minorities at a company or institution. Such plans typically contain the following:[35][20]

    • numerical analysis of the percentage of minorities employed versus the percentage in the labor pool,
    • identification of areas where there is "underutilization" of minorities, or a discrepancy between the above percentages, and
    • "specific practical steps" the employer will take to correct this discrepancy.

    In Arizona, Article II, Section 36 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination in state employment and contracting. The constitution was amended by the Arizona Civil Rights Amendment in 2010. The amendment does not, however, prevent agencies and organizations that receive federal funding from implementing affirmative action programs according to federal law.[36][37]

    Seal of Arizona.png
    See law: Article II, Section 36, Arizona State Constitution

    In addition, Arizona has a nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[38]

    “
    • Race
    • Color
    • National origin
    • Religion
    • Sex
    • Disability: Physical or mental
    • Age (40 and older)
    • Genetic information
    • AIDS/HIV (according to A.G. opinion)[39]
    		 ”

    The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least 15 employees and is enforced by the Arizona Civil Rights Division.[38]

    Federal requirements

    Federal contractors and agencies in Arizona that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.[36]

    Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:[38]

    • Employers with at least four employees must adhere to the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
    • Employers with at least 15 employees must adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
    • Employers with at least 20 employees must adhere to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
    • Employers with any number of employees must adhere to the Equal Pay Act.

    Federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in Arizona are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[38]

    Court cases

    EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.

    Part of the Navajo Nation in Arizona

    Since the early 1940s, mining companies have entered into mineral leases that allow them to mine coal on tribal lands. Often, these leases included a clause that required the mining company to give employment preference to tribal workers. One of these companies, Peabody Western Coal Company, had entered into two leases with the Navajo Nation in 1964 and 1966. The leases required the company to give employment preference to members of the Nation. These leases were approved by the United States Department of the Interior. In 1998, three members of other tribes, two from the Hopi Tribe and one from the Otoe Tribe, filed discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when they were not hired into positions for which they were qualified. In 2001, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Peabody, claiming the company's tribal employment preference was a form of national origin discrimination and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[40]

    The case bounced between the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for a decade due to procedural issues. In 2012, a ruling was finally reached in the district court, which found in favor of Peabody. The court held that the hiring preference was based on a political classification rather than one of national origin. Therefore, the court determined, the preference did not violate Title VII. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the district court that the lease contained a political classification rather than one based on national origin.[40][41]

    Public opinion

    National public opinion polls on affirmative action have yielded mixed results over the past few years. Results found by researchers seem to depend largely on how the question is worded. In particular, support drops considerably when the word "preferences" is included in the question. Supporters of affirmative action are more likely to do so to increase diversity rather than compensate for past injustice.[42][43]

    Opinions also change when the question refers to college admissions specifically, and support and opposition are somewhat divided on racial lines, with black Americans being far more likely to favor affirmative action. In general, support for affirmative action has dropped since its peak in the early 1990s, when a poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61 percent of Americans thought that affirmative action policies were still needed, compared to 45 percent in June 2013.[44]

    Support

    Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][45]

    • Diversity is valuable for any workplace or college campus.
    • Minority enrollment in college would fall dramatically without affirmative action.
    • Affirmative action provides the extra push to disadvantaged students that is needed to succeed.
    • By providing minorities with new opportunities, affirmative action may introduce them to other interests they would not have discovered otherwise.
    • Affirmative action is necessary to break stereotypes.
    • Affirmative action compensates for past injustices.

    Opposition

    Common arguments stated against affirmative action include the following:[45]

    • Affirmative action policies have caused "reverse discrimination" against whites.
    • According to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmative action is unconstitutional.
    • Since standards are lowered by preferential treatment, minorities only aim for those lower standards.
    • Affirmative action causes a "mismatch effect" of underqualified students, leading to their failure at elite schools.
    • Affirmative action is demeaning and condescending to minority achievement.
    • It is too difficult to end affirmative action policies after they have been enacted, even when discrimination is no longer an issue.

    Agencies

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is "responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." These federal laws typically apply to workplaces with 15 or more employees. The EEOC operates field offices in 15 districts. Arizona is served primarily by the Phoenix District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Arizona.[46]

    EEOC field offices serving Arizona
    Office Location Website
    Phoenix District Office Phoenix, Arizona Link
    Denver Field Office Denver, Colorado Link
    Albuquerque Area Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Link

    In addition, states and localities may have their own anti-discrimination laws. Separate agencies, designated by the EEOC as Fair Employment Practices Agencies, are responsible for enforcing these laws. In Arizona, the Arizona State Attorney General, Civil Rights Division is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[47][48][49]

    Fair Employment Practices Agencies in Arizona
    Office Location Phone number Website
    Arizona State Attorney General, Civil Rights Division Phoenix, Arizona (602) 542-5025 Link


    Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation

    The following is a list of recent affirmative action and anti-discrimination bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Arizona state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

    Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
    3. ↑ Business and Legal Resources, "Affirmative Action," accessed March 31, 2015
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action | Overview," February 7, 2015
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Infoplease, "Affirmative Action History," accessed February 10, 2015
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Infoplease, "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones," accessed February 10, 2015
    7. ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
    8. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
    9. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke," accessed May 28, 2015
    10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sffa
    11. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named apsffa
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: State Action," accessed April 21, 2015
    13. ↑ FindLaw, "What is Discrimination?" accessed May 29, 2015
    14. ↑ Merriam-Webster, "Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    15. ↑ The Brookings Institution, "Racial and Ethnic Preference," November 1996
    16. ↑ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, "Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy," accessed May 28, 2015
    17. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
    18. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Reverse discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    19. ↑ FindLaw, "Reverse Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Society for Human Resource Management, "EEO: General: What is the difference between EEO, affirmative action and diversity?" September 20, 2012
    21. ↑ Study.com, "What is Equal Employment Opportunity? - Definition, Laws & Policies," accessed May 29, 2015
    22. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
    23. ↑ Luther College, "What Is Diversity?" accessed May 29, 2015
    24. ↑ Association of American Colleges and Universities, "Broadening Our Definition of Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
    25. ↑ The Atlantic, "The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action," October 2, 2012
    26. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
    27. ↑ US Legal Definitions, "Quota System Law & Legal Definition," accessed November 12, 2015
    28. ↑ National Review, "Half a Win on Racial Discrimination," accessed November 12, 2015
    29. ↑ Newsmax "Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good," May 2, 2005
    30. ↑ Investopedia, "Ratchet Effect," accessed December 19, 2017
    31. ↑ Higher Ed Jobs, "Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action," accessed March 25, 2015
    32. ↑ PBS, "Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies," May 19, 2015
    33. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
    34. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
    35. ↑ MIT Human Resources: Diversity & Inclusion, "What is an Affirmative Action Plan," accessed May 28, 2015
    36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Business and Legal Resources, "Arizona Affirmative Action: What you need to know," accessed March 31, 2015
    37. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "Article II, Section 36, Arizona State Constitution," accessed April 27, 2015
    38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Nolo, "Employment Discrimination in Arizona," accessed April 24, 2015
    39. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, "EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co.," accessed April 27, 2015
    41. ↑ Littler, "Ninth Circuit Rejects EEOC's Challenge of Tribal Hiring Preferences," September 29, 2015
    42. ↑ The New York Times, "Answers on Affirmative Action Depend on How You Pose the Question," April 22, 2014
    43. ↑ CBS News, "Poll: Slim majority backs same-sex marriage," June 6, 2013
    44. ↑ NBC News, "NBC News/WSJ poll: Affirmative action support at historic low," June 11, 2013
    45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 BalancedPolitics.org, "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" accessed February 16, 2015
    46. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Office List and Jurisdictional Map," accessed November 12, 2015
    47. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing," accessed November 12, 2015
    48. ↑ TheLaw.com, "List of State Fair Employment Practices Agencies," accessed November 12, 2015
    49. ↑ Arizona Attorney General, "Civil Rights," accessed November 13, 2015


    Flag of Arizona
    v • e
    State of Arizona
    Phoenix (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Affirmative_action_in_Arizona&oldid=10311201"