In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Topical Index 459 Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Peña (strict scrutiny held by the Supreme Court to be the test for racial/ ethnic classifications in federal governmental affirmative action), 21, 43, 55, 60–82, 108, 127, 132, 146, 149, 306–9, 317–18, 323 abandonment (seeming) alleged by Supreme Court dissenters, 68–71 analysis of, 60–76 Civil Rights Commission report on administrative adherence to, 71–74 constitutional requirement of strict judicial scrutiny for federal affirmative action stated in, 61–62 constitutional requirement of strict judicial scrutiny for racial/ethnic classifications in state government affirmative action first stated in Richmond v. Croson, 60–68 diversity rationale for affirmative action and strict scrutiny, 51–54, 74–82, 104–14, 144–63, 178–87, 308 federal (lower) courts interpretation of strict scrutiny, 68–71 intermediate judicial scrutiny for gender discrimination by government, 63, 178–81, 310 issues about, 76–82, 306–8 lowest-tier/mere rationality judicial scrutiny required for governmental age, disability, and sexual orientation discrimination, 257–58, 269, 275–77, 300–1 See also Equal Opportunity in Employment and Contracting; Strict Scrutiny; Supreme Court Administrative Promotion of Affirmative Action bilingual education, 125–26 diversity rationale for K-12 integration, 104–14, 122–27 government procurement/contracting and public/private employment, 31–40, 337–41, 361–73 neglect of direct housing affirmative action, 238–41, 253–55 preferential admissions, studentdiversity promotion and higher education, 131–70 reasonable accommodation for the disabled, 266 To assist the reader, brief descriptions of central administrative regulations, laws, and judicial opinions are provided herein. Page references to the aforementioned include extended excerpts and related commentary. The Affirmative Action main entry is a cross-reference for all the other main entries. Main entries are in bold. 460 TOPICAL INDEX Administrative Promotion of Affirmative Action (continued) voting rights, 195–204 See also Equal Opportunity main entries; Civil Rights Constitutional, Legislative and Regulatory Measures Affirmative Action acceptance: by business, 50–51, 82–83; in education 50–51, 131–70; by the public, 330–31; by scholars and commentators, 12–14, 19–25, 39–40, 74, 131–44, 315–35 administrative activities in connection with: diversity promotion in K-12 education, 104–14; employment, 31–40; preferential university admissions, 131–70; reasonable accommodation for the disabled, 266; regulations, 355–73; voting antidilution efforts, 195–204 administrative law and affirmative action, 31–40, 355–73 age discrimination and, 279–85 alternatives to, 85–86, 119–20, 165–70, 198, 238–41, 323–24 antiaffirmative action laws and referenda, 165–70 arguments for and against, 2–3, 19–25, 40–42, 234–36, 315–33 beneficiaries (intended) of, 1–2, 12–17, 19–25, 27–46, 48–49, 68–74, 82–87, 94–121, 131–70, 182–87, 192–95, 221–23, 241–52, 257–97, 316–33, 337–54 bilingual education as dimension of, 122–27 Brown v. Board of Education as precursor of, 92–102, 172, 174–75, 177–78, 195, 300, 308–9 Civil Rights Commission (PostAdarand ) approach to, 71–74 class-based assistance as an alternative for, 23, 323–24 class-standing in high school as an alternative for race/ ethnic preferences in university admissions, 165–66 color (race/ethnic) blindness as basis for opposition to, 23, 37, 40–41, 157–60, 165, 316, 319, 323–24 constitutional requirements and: disparate impact, 307; diversity affirmative action, 52–54, 74–75, 104–14, 144–63; issues about, 46–48, 51–57, 60–79, 94–114, 131–33, 144–63, 170–83, 192– 93, 210–21, 236–41, 267–74, 275–77, 285–97, 300–1, 306–10, 399n134; judicial scrutiny of the constitutionality of affirmative action under Equal Protection Clause; 43, 60–82, 104–14, 144–63, 179–81, 257–97, 306–10 criminal justice and, 331–33 definition of, 1–3, 41–42, 375nn3–4 disability and, 257–75, 300–3 disparate impact (age/race/ethnic/ gender/sexual orientation/ disability status) as rationale for: background, 2–4, 7–19, 27–29, 40–42, 92, 191–92, 262–63; the disabled, 262; in employment and contracting, 31–87, 258–75, 277–85, 306–8, 310–14, 337–73; in higher education, 131–44, 182–87; homosexuals, 296, 303–4; in housing, 231–55; in K-12 education, 92–93, 109–14, 122–27; in military recruiting, 152, 351–54; relation to nonremedial/diversity affirmative action, 1–2, 39–40, 42, 74–75, 109–14, 399n134; for senior workers, 277–85; for voting rights, 195–221 disparate...

Share