Affirmative Action and the University: A Philosophical Inquiry

Introduction

Introduction In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, directing that "all Government contracting agencies ... take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed ... without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Two years later the order was amended to prohibit discrimination in employment because of sex. The original order authorized the secretary of labor to "adopt such rules and regulations . . . as he deems necessary and appropriate" pursuant to the order's purposes. In response to this mandate, the Department of Labor required all 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." The term "minority groups" referred to "Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American Indians, and Orientals." The concept of "underutilization " meant "having fewer minorities or women in a particular job classification than would reasonably be expected by their availability ." "Goals" were not to be "rigid and inflexible quotas" but "targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work." Affirmative action is now an integral part of the appointment process at virtually every college and university in the United States. Announcements of available faculty or administrative positions routinely include statements such as this actual one: "[The University] is an equal opportunity, affirmative action emlployer which actively seeks and encourages nominations of, and expressions of interest from, mi- ~ 2 Steven M. Cahn nority and female candidates." Every search committee is expected to conduct its activities in accord with federal affirmative action guidelines , and typically compliance is monitored by a school's Office of Affirmative Action. Each institution regularly updates its affirmative action plan, and progress in achieving goals is systematically reviewed by the Department of Labor. Failure to develop an acceptable plan or substantial deviation from it may result in loss of federal funding. During the early years of its implementation, affirmative action was the subject of heated debate. Were goals and timetables merely disguised quotas? Were standards being lowered for favored applicants? Were discriminatory practices that judged individuals by irrelevant criteria such as race or sex ever to be ended by programs that differentiated among people on the basis of those same criteria? Furthermore, assuming affirmative action to be justifiable, was it deserved equally by Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American Indians, Orientals, and women? Were the bases for the claims in each case the same? Should any other groups have been added to the list? Under what specific circumstances should a group be removed from the list? As administrators and faculty members put affirmative action into practice, vehement disputes arose regarding a variety of procedural issues. For example, if a search committee failed to find a qualified candidate whose appointment would help fulfill the affirmative action plan, might it be appropriate to leave the position vacant until a more favorable outcome could be achieved? On the other hand, if a department had learned informally of the availability of a suitable candidate, should that appointment be made without any formal announcement or search? In addition, should these institutional policies be publicized. To some, such questions were of fundamental importance. Others thought them pettifoggery. In either case passions ran high. But within academia the temper of the times has changed. The torrent of articles for and against affirmative action has become a trickle. Consider, for example, that between 1973 and 1978 the highly regarded journal Philosophy and Public Affairs, which concentrates on philosophical discussions of substantive public issues, devoted approximately 10 percent of its pages to the affirmative action controversy. Since that time, however, the magazine has hardly mentioned the matter. Of the hundreds of academic conferences held each year through- Introduction 3 out the United States, many continue to focus on the most effective means of achieving the aims of affirmative action, but rarely does one concentrate on examining the aims themselves. Lest it be supposed that this phenomenon results from consensus having been reached, consider an article I submitted several years ago to The Chronicle of Higher Education. The editors agreed to publish it but warned me to expect an intense reaction to its controversial subject. Having previously contributed columns to The Chronicle that produced many responses to me and to the newspaper, in...