Quotas and race relations
Quotas in the context of race relations refer to established limits on the number of individuals from specific racial or ethnic groups allowed in various settings, particularly in educational and employment contexts. This practice has often been associated with efforts to address historical inequalities and promote diversity but has also sparked significant controversy. For example, in the United States, colleges such as Harvard and Columbia historically implemented quotas to limit Jewish admissions in response to pressures from alumni concerned about competition. Similar practices arose in the 1980s concerning Asian American applicants, leading to accusations of compromised academic standards.
The introduction of affirmative action policies in the 1970s aimed to desegregate the workforce by encouraging employers and educational institutions to reflect the racial composition of the labor market. However, the distinction between goals and quotas became blurred, leading to legal challenges. Landmark cases, such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Adarand Constructors v. Peña, shaped the legal landscape surrounding quotas by establishing that rigid quotas are unconstitutional without a rational basis. Most recently, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College determined that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause, significantly impacting college admissions practices across the nation. Despite this, some experts suggest that certain quota-related policies could still be legally justified if aligned with demonstrable harms to specific groups.
Quotas and race relations
A “quota” is a minimum or maximum number allowable, such as the ceiling on the number of automobiles that Japanese manufacturers once agreed to export to the US market. In ethnic and race relations in the United States, the term has acquired a reputation as a means to limit the selection of meritorious persons in personnel matters.
After World War II, many Jewish high school students applied for college with test scores so high that they were fully qualified for admission to the very best colleges. Parents of alumni from those same colleges, finding the competition exceedingly difficult for their children, pressured the colleges to establish quotas in order to limit the number of Jews admitted. These quotas were later rescinded under pressure from many quarters. However, in the 1980s, when well-qualified Asian students achieved very high test scores for admission to colleges in California, a similar informal quota system was established, only to be abolished when word leaked out that academic standards were being compromised.
In the 1970s, with the advent of affirmative action, federal enforcement agencies began to insist that employers work toward desegregating the workforce by becoming aware of the percentage of qualified workers of each race for each job category. Employers were asked to establish the goal of having their businesses ultimately mirror the hiring patterns of the labor market as a whole, based on such labor market surveys as are found in the decennial census. Timetables for accomplishing this desegregation were to be based on turnover statistics and estimates of business expansion. Federal agencies also encouraged educational institutions to follow the same process of establishing goals and timetables in admissions.
Although federal guidelines insisted that goals and timetables were not quotas, in practice employers and educational institutions implemented affirmative action in such a way that quotas resulted, infuriating White job seekers and college aspirants. Litigation resulted, culminating in the definitive Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), in which the Supreme Court of the United States declared quotas, unless rationally based, to be unconstitutional. Even though Congress adopted a provision of the Public Works Employment Act that set aside 10 percent of all federal construction contracts for minority firms, the Supreme Court struck down the concept of a rigid quota in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995), holding that strict scrutiny must be applied to all race-conscious decision making, even that undertaken by Congress, and therefore a rational basis must be demonstrated in selecting 10 percent rather than some other figure.
In the twenty-first century, affirmative action quotas have continued to be allowable when there is a logical basis. If specific harm to an ethnic or racial group is demonstrable, a court-approved remedy involving a quota must be tailored to the precise quantitative extent of that harm. In a landmark decision that reversed decades of legal precedent, the Court fundamentally ended race-conscious admissions at American universities in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023). Finding these practices violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Court reversed the lower court's previous ruling. Though Harvard College and the University of North Carolina were at the center of the litigation, this decision set case law that would impact the admission processes of all universities. However, some experts noted that many policies involving quotas and race relations in college admissions remained legally defensible.
Bibliography
Adediran, Atinuke O. "Racial Targets." Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, 25 July 2023, corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/07/25/racial-targets. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
"Affirmative Action Myths and Realities." University of Oregon, hr.uoregon.edu/affirmative-action-myths-and-realities. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
Kennedy, Randall. For Discrimination: Race, Affirmative Action, and the Law. Pantheon, 2013.
Kenton, Will. "What Is Affirmative Action? How It Works and Example." Investopedia, 28 July 2024, www.investopedia.com/terms/a/affirmative-action.asp. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.
Pierce, Jennifer L. Racing for Innocence: Whiteness, Gender, and the Backlash against Affirmative Action. Stanford UP, 2012.
Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action, Effectively Ending Race-Conscious Admissions." NPR, 29 June 2023, www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision. Accessed 20 Nov. 2024.