Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Affirmative action in Rhode Island

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

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 Rhode Island
Civil Liberties Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
General information
Public four-year schools:
2
Number considering race:
1
State affirmative action law:
RI Gen. Laws Sec. 28-5-40,
RI Gen. Laws Sec. 28-5-5
State agency:
•Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights
•State Equal Opportunity Office
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 Rhode Island refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • In Rhode Island, one public university reported considering race in admissions as of March 2015.
  • At that time, Rhode Island had enacted a law requiring state agencies to develop affirmative action plans for their employment processes.

    • 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 in 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]

    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.[12][13]
    • 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.[14][15][16]
    • 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.[17][18]
    • 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.[19][20]
    • 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.[21][22][23]
    • 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.[24][25]
    • 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.[26]
    • 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.[27][28][29]

    University admissions

    See also: Higher education in Rhode Island

    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][30]

    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][31][32][33]

    Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions. As of March 2015, Rhode Island was not one of these states. Of two public four-year universities in Rhode Island, one considers race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.

    Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Rhode Island
    School Race/Ethnicity is... School selectivity*
    Very important Important Considered Not considered
    Rhode Island College
    {{{1}}}
    		 Somewhat selective
    University of Rhode Island
    {{{1}}}
    		 Less 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:[34][19]

    • 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.

    As of March 2015, Rhode Island had passed its own state law regarding affirmative action requirements or plans for public employers. Rhode Island requires all state agencies to develop annual affirmative action plans. The plans should detail steps for each agency to take in order to "correct any continuing deficiencies in the employment of women, persons with disabilities, and minorities in the workforce." The governor reports annually on the status of affirmative action and equal employment in state agencies.[35]

    See law: RI Gen. Laws Sec. 28-5-40
    Seal of Rhode Island.png

    In addition, Rhode Island has a nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[36]

    “
    • Race
    • Color
    • National origin
    • Religion
    • Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
    • Disability: physical or mental
    • Age (40 and older)
    • Genetic information
    • Sexual orientation (includes perceived sexual orientation)
    • AIDS/HIV
    • Domestic abuse victim
    • Gender identity or expression
    • Homelessness[37]
    		 ”

    The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least four employees (or more than one employee for gender-based wage discrimination) and is enforced by the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.[36]

    Federal requirements

    Federal contractors and agencies in Rhode Island that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law, which requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.[35]

    Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:[36]

    • 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 Rhode Island are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[36]

    Court cases

    Pina v. City of East Providence

    World War I Memorial and Taunton Plaza, East Providence RI

    In 1973, the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that minorities were underrepresented in state and certain local governments, one of which was the City of East Providence. The committee recommended that East Providence develop an affirmative action plan for city departments, including the East Providence Fire Department.[38]

    The fire department gave written tests to all applicants for firefighter positions in 1977. Those who passed the written test were considered for the physical agility test, and both were weighted equally in determining hiring decisions. Of those who passed the written portion, "it is estimated that twelve, or 5.6 percent, were minorities." The candidates were ranked according to weighted totals, and the top 11 names were sent to the city manager, who decided which nine candidates would be hired. No minorities were included among those sent to the city manager, since the highest minority candidate ranked 16th.[38]

    A group of minorities sued the City of East Providence, claiming that the written portion of the test had unlawfully discriminated against them. In effect, the equal weighting of the tests had caused the city to violate the affirmative action plan developed in 1973. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found the "use of the ranking and certification system constituted unlawful employment discrimination" because it had a disparate impact on minorities. The court ordered the city to prepare and present a plan to implement the affirmative action plan adopted in 1973.[38]

    Eastridge v. Rhode Island College

    Nazarian center at Rhode Island College

    In 1998, Timothy Eastridge sued Rhode Island College on the basis of discrimination, claiming he was denied employment for a tenure-track position because he was white. Eastridge was one of four finalists for a position in the Department of Modern Languages, with a specialty in French. The search committee chose to offer the position to "Ahmed Bangura, a black African male," with the recommendation that Eastridge be offered the job if Bangura did not accept.[39]

    The department made its decision, at least partially, based on stated goals from the Affirmative Action Office, one of which was to have a 26.9 percent minority representation and a 70.4 percent female representation in the Department of Modern Languages. When Bangura declined the position, a member of the search committee recommended Amy Wygant, rather than Eastridge, for the position. The search was canceled instead, and Eastridge was offered a one-year appointment that was not renewed.[39]

    Eastridge filed a lawsuit, claiming that the hiring practices were unlawful and that they violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Eastridge asked for a declaratory judgment against Rhode Island College and for compensatory damages. The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island found: "The 14th amendment creates rights but it does not create a means by which a claim for recovery for violation of those rights can be brought before a federal court." The court found against Eastridge on four of his claims and dismissed two others.[39]

    Public opinion

    Support

    Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][40]

    • 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 for them 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:[40]

    • 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. Rhode Island is served primarily by the New York District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Rhode Island.[41]

    EEOC field offices serving Rhode Island
    Office Location Website
    New York District Office New York, New York Link
    Boston Area Office Boston, Massachusetts Link
    Newark Area Office Newark, New Jersey Link
    Buffalo Local Office Buffalo, New York 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 Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[42][43][44]

    Fair Employment Practices Agencies in Rhode Island
    Office Location Phone number Website
    Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights Providence, Rhode Island (401) 222-2661 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 Rhode Island 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. ↑ FindLaw, "What is Discrimination?" accessed May 29, 2015
    13. ↑ Merriam-Webster, "Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    14. ↑ The Brookings Institution, "Racial and Ethnic Preference," November 1996
    15. ↑ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, "Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy," accessed May 28, 2015
    16. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
    17. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Reverse discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    18. ↑ FindLaw, "Reverse Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
    19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Society for Human Resource Management, "EEO: General: What is the difference between EEO, affirmative action and diversity?" September 20, 2012
    20. ↑ Study.com, "What is Equal Employment Opportunity? - Definition, Laws & Policies," accessed May 29, 2015
    21. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
    22. ↑ Luther College, "What Is Diversity?" accessed May 29, 2015
    23. ↑ Association of American Colleges and Universities, "Broadening Our Definition of Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
    24. ↑ The Atlantic, "The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action," October 2, 2012
    25. ↑ 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.
    26. ↑ US Legal Definitions, "Quota System Law & Legal Definition," accessed November 12, 2015
    27. ↑ National Review, "Half a Win on Racial Discrimination," accessed November 12, 2015
    28. ↑ Newsmax "Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good," May 2, 2005
    29. ↑ Investopedia, "Ratchet Effect," accessed December 19, 2017
    30. ↑ Higher Ed Jobs, "Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action," accessed March 25, 2015
    31. ↑ PBS, "Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies," May 19, 2015
    32. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
    33. ↑ 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.
    34. ↑ MIT Human Resources: Diversity & Inclusion, "What is an Affirmative Action Plan," accessed May 28, 2015
    35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Business and Legal Resources, "Rhode Island Affirmative Action: What you need to know," accessed March 31, 2015
    36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 Nolo, "Employment Discrimination in Rhode Island," accessed April 24, 2015
    37. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 Justia U.S. Law, "Pina v. City of East Providence, 492 F. Supp. 1240 (D.R.I. 1980)," accessed April 24, 2015
    39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Rhode Island District Court, "Timothy Eastridge, Plaintiff v. Rhode Island College," accessed April 24, 2015
    40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 BalancedPolitics.org, "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" accessed February 16, 2015
    41. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Office List and Jurisdictional Map," accessed November 12, 2015
    42. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing," accessed November 12, 2015
    43. ↑ TheLaw.com, "List of State Fair Employment Practices Agencies," accessed November 12, 2015
    44. ↑ Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, "Home," accessed November 12, 2015


    Flag of Rhode Island
    v • e
    State of Rhode Island
    Providence (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_Rhode_Island&oldid=10311242"