The Ironies of Affirmative Action

Skrentny, John D.

doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226216423.001.0001

Cited by 385 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, even when the attitudes of racial minorities are considered, the research is limited toward exploring their support or opposition for a ff i rmative action programs aimed at assisting African Americans or some other minority group (Bobo 2000(Bobo , 1998Hughes and Tuch 2000). Yet, affirmative action programs never single out a particular minority group to be the sole beneficiary (Skrentny 1996). In fact, President Johnson who helped establish many of these programs frequently noted in private conversations and public speeches that civil rights legislation extended to groups other than African American (Pycior 1997).…”

Section: Class or Race?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Black and White: General Support for Race-Conscious Policies Among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites

Lopez

Pantoja

2004

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of racial attitudes in the U.S. has largely focused on white attitudes toward African Americans and policies designed to assist African Americans. We go beyond this black-white dichotomy by comparing African American, Latino, Asian American, and white attitudes toward opportunity-enhancing and outcome-directed policies. Data from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality, 1992-1994 are used to test the effects class and ethnic/racial identities play in shaping respondent’s policy preferences. Because both of these programs are designed to apply equally to African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, we model general support for these policies. In other words respondents who supported each program for all three groups were coded as favoring the particular policy. Our coding method more accurately captures the real world application of these programs. We find that even when we control for class status, measures of racial prejudice, as well as a host of other factors, ethnic and racial differences persist. African Americans strongly support both policies, while whites were the least supportive. Latinos and Asian Americans in varying degrees took intermediate positions on these issues. The research considers the reasons for the persistence of ethnic and racial differences on race-conscious policies and suggests future avenues for research.

show abstract

Section: Class or Race?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Black and White: General Support for Race-Conscious Policies Among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites

Lopez

Pantoja

2004

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17 Race riots in many American cities in 1965-1968 increased political pressure on government agencies charged with enforcing the Civil Rights Act to get quick results, and their pragmatic solution was to introduce race-conscious, accommodative affirmative action that, "it was said time and again, was effective, it was technically necessary, it worked." 18 Administrative pragmatism "may supersede other cultural rules-even the moral boundaries of the color-blind model," it being "less risky to advocate affirmative action than to preside over a demonstrably failing agency." 19 Administrative pragmatism need not lead to accommodation; however, it may also enjoin the third policy option.…”

Section: Three Coping Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

The dilemma of recognition: Administrative categories and cultural diversity

Zwart

2005

Theor Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The seeds of affirmative action are rooted in a color‐blind approach (Skrentny, 1996), which ostensibly makes race/ethnicity irrelevant to university admissions. Since its inception, however, affirmative action has come to represent a race conscious paradigm (Jackson, 1992; Niemann & Dovidio, this issue; Skrentny, 1996) that takes race into consideration university admissions and hiring in order to counter differential treatment and discrimination toward particular groups in society.…”

Section: What Is Affirmative Action?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inequities in Higher Education: Issues and Promising Practices in a World Ambivalent about Affirmative Action

Niemann

Maruyama

2005

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legality of race‐based affirmative action at universities in 2003. Although the decisions affirmed the legality of considering race in college admissions decisions, their long‐term effects are not entirely clear. They neither resolved conflicts nor solved problems affirmative action was intended to address, namely, disparities in educational outcomes between Whites and ethnic/racial minorities. Although disparities have diminished since 1965, policies and practices to sustain and further increase diversity in higher education without affirmative action are needed. This article provides historical and conceptual grounding for this JSI issue, which examines approaches for attaining campus diversity. Collectively, the issue provides approaches for increasing diversity as well as strategies for managing and benefiting from diversity in postsecondary environments.

show abstract

The Ironies of Affirmative Action

Cited by 385 publications

References 0 publications

Beyond Black and White: General Support for Race-Conscious Policies Among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites

Beyond Black and White: General Support for Race-Conscious Policies Among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Whites

The dilemma of recognition: Administrative categories and cultural diversity

Inequities in Higher Education: Issues and Promising Practices in a World Ambivalent about Affirmative Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About