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

120 \f Th e Constitutionalit y o f Remedia l Affirmativ e Actio n to thei r race , creed , color , o r nationa l origin. " Sectio n 20 3 requires eac h contractor t o fil e complianc e report s containin g dat a o n th e contractor' s employment statistics , policies , practices , an d program s tha t th e labo r secretary may prescribe.18 During Presiden t Nixon' s firs t term , whe n federa l agencie s trie d t o enforce affirmativ e actio n regulations , requirin g contractor s t o establis h hiring goals and timetable s fo r th e employmen t o f minority worker s an d evidence o f good-fait h effort s t o achiev e thes e goals , th e policie s wer e challenged a s illega l quotas. 19 Typica l o f suc h challenge s wa s th e 197 1 attack o n th e Philadelphi a Plan , promulgate d unde r th e authorit y o f Executive Orde r 11,246 , which require d bidder s o n any federal o r feder ally assiste d constructio n contract s fo r project s i n th e five-count y are a around Philadelphi a t o submi t a n acceptabl e affirmativ e actio n plan , including specifi c goal s fo r th e inclusio n o f minorit y manpowe r i n si x skilled crafts : ironworkers , plumber s an d pip e fitters , steamfitters , shee t metal workers, electrical workers, and elevator construction workers . Th e plan als o require d bidder s t o mak e good-fait h effort s t o mee t targete d minority hirin g goal s withi n timetable s establishe d b y Assistan t Labo r Secretary Arthu r Fletcher , who , b y th e way , remain s a proponen t o f remedial affirmative action. 20 The pla n was illegal, insisted th e plaintiffs, becaus e i t was beyond th e scope o f executiv e powe r unde r th e Constitutio n an d wa s inconsisten t with title s V I an d VII , amon g othe r laws . Th e federa l circui t cour t rejected al l the plaintiffs ' constitutiona l an d statutor y challenges, 21 mak ing it clear that it viewed the Philadelphia Plan as race conscious: "Indee d the onl y meanin g whic h ca n b e attribute d t o th e affirmativ e actio n lan guage which since March of 1961 has been include d i n successive Execu tive Order s i s tha t Governmen t contractor s mus t b e color-conscious." 22 That is , i n 1971 , this cour t di d no t thin k tha t color-consciou s remedia l affirmative actio n wa s illegal. Quite th e contrary , th e cour t believe d tha t Congress an d th e presiden t intende d tha t employer s working under fed eral o r federally assiste d project s hir e minorit y an d femal e workers . Bu t as th e affirmativ e actio n program s expanded , s o di d th e publi c debat e over them . THE COUR T O F LAS T RESOR T As remedial affirmative actio n policies were extended within employmen t and t o other areas , including education , politica l participation , an d hous - The Constitutionalit y o f Remedia l Affirmativ e Actio n \f 12 1 ing programs, th e oppositio n als o grew, scholarl y criticis m mounted , an d judicial opinion s split , requirin g th e Suprem e Cour t t o ste p in . A s th e ultimate voic e o n constitutional interpretation , i t is the Suprem e Court' s duty t o determin e whethe r governmenta l policie s violat e constitutiona l rights. Regents of the University of California v. BakkeZ7> was the firs t decisio n o f the Suprem e Cour t t o analyz e th e constitutionalit y o f race-consciou s affirmative action . Th e medica l schoo l o f th e Universit y o f Californi a a t Davis opene d i n 196 8 with a n...

Share