Affirmative action in Alabama

in Alabama

Fiscal Budgets Alabama state budget and finances Tax policy in Alabama Finance Financial regulation in Alabama Pensions Public pensions in Alabama Pension health in Alabama Civil liberties Affirmative action in Alabama Campaign finance requirements in Alabama Campaign finance requirements for Alabama ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Alabama Education Charter schools in Alabama Higher education in Alabama Public education in Alabama School choice in Alabama Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Alabama Ballot access requirements for political parties in Alabama Political parties in Alabama Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Alabama Redistricting in Alabama Voting in Alabama Energy and Environment Energy policy in Alabama Fracking in Alabama Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Alabama Endangered species in Alabama Environmental policy in Alabama Healthcare Healthcare policy in Alabama Medicaid spending in Alabama Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Alabama Immigration Immigration in Alabama

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you have any questions or comments, contact us.

Affirmative action in Alabama

General information

Public four-year schools: 14

Number considering race: 0

State affirmative action law: N/A

State agency: Equal Employment/Civil Rights Division

Affirmative action in other states

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Affirmative action • Gratz v. Bollinger • Grutter v. Bollinger • Fisher v. University of Texas

Affirmative action in Alabama refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Alabama to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.^[1]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

As of March 2015, 109 out of 577 public four-year universities across the country reported that they considered race in admissions. This practice has been banned in eight states. Meanwhile, 28 states require affirmative action plans in either public employment or apprenticeships. Affirmative action programs that grant racial preferences have come under scrutiny in the courts for potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.^[2][3]

The following information details the use of affirmative action in universities and employment in Alabama, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

The effects of affirmative action policies are contested. Proponents argue that affirmative action diversifies selective institutions and provides more opportunities to minorities. Opponents argue that implementing policies that favor some groups requires discrimination against others and that these policiesmay harm individuals they are meant to help.

Background

The first reference to affirmative action was made by President John F. Kennedy (D) in 1961 in an executive order directing government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." While there had previously been efforts by the federal government to end racial discrimination, the order marked the first instance of an active approach to promoting equal opportunity.^[4][5][6][7]

Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964

As the Civil Rights Movement grew, the federal government took on an increasing role in preventing discrimination and bolstering minority numbers in workplaces and universities. President Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, some still felt that preventing discrimination was not enough, so President Johnson issued an executive order that created the means to enforce affirmative action policies for the first time. Of their own initiative, many colleges and universities nationwide also adopted affirmative action policies to increase minority enrollment.^{[4][5][7][8][9]}

The use of affirmative action programs was initially intended to be temporary. However, over time the goals of affirmative action policies shifted from equality of opportunity to the achievement of equal representation and outcomes for minorities at all levels of society, a more ambiguous target. Furthermore, lawsuits have been brought against institutions utilizing affirmative action policies, citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that promoting diversity, rather than compensating for historical injustices, is the constitutional goal of affirmative action. In its 2013 ruling on affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court also placed the burden on universities to prove that no viable race-neutral alternatives exist when they use racial preferences in admissions to increase diversity.^[5][6][10]

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions in a June 29, 2023, decision. The ruling explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.^[11][12]

Key terms

The following terms are helpful in understanding affirmative action policy:

• Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of some individuals or groups based on federally-protected traits, such as age, race/ethnicity and gender.^[13][14]
• Preferential treatment occurs when an applicant is more likely to be selected than another applicant with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race and ethnicity.^[15][16][17]
• Reverse discrimination is, according to Dictionary.com, unequal treatment or discrimination based on protected traits of "members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies" favoring historically disadvantaged groups, with the intent of remedying past societal discrimination.^[18][19]
• Equal employment opportunity is a commitment employers make to refrain from employment practices that are discriminatory, either directly (disparate treatment) or indirectly (disparate impact). According to Study.com, an equal employment opportunity policy is intended to ensure that "certain classes of people who have been discriminated against in the past are not subjected to adverse treatment" based on protected traits.^[20][21]
• Diversity means the representation of individuals of a variety of backgrounds in terms of characteristics such as national origin, race and ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status.^[22][23][24]
• The mismatch effect refers to the theory that when an elite school extends a large preference to a student due to his race, athletic ability or connection to alumni, that student is less prepared for the rigor of the classes and suffers academically, though that student would perhaps thrive at a somewhat less elite school.^[25][26]
• Racial quotas are hiring or admissions policies requiring that a specified number or percentage of minority group members be hired or admitted. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court outlawed the use of strict racial quotas.^[27]
• Ratchet effect/cascade effect refers to a phenomenon in which actors do not have an incentive to improve a situation even if they easily could.^[28][29][30]

University admissions

See also: Higher education in Alabama

Affirmative action in university admissions is a separate matter from affirmative action in employment that operates under different rules and regulations. Federal law requires government contractors and other departments and agencies receiving federal funding to develop and implement affirmative action plans for the hiring process. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and must utilize affirmative action in their employment practices. However, many private colleges and universities across the country have also implemented similar measures in their admissions processes. These actions are typically voluntary, although a handful of states have adopted rules that require state universities to take affirmative action in admissions.^[4][5][31]

Affirmative action admissions programs were undertaken by public and private universities alike, beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some universities initially established quotas in order to achieve a demographically diverse student body; these quotas were outlawed by the United States Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Today, a common form of affirmative action in college admissions is that of racial preferences. A preference occurs when a group of applicants is more likely to be admitted than other applicants with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race or ethnicity. Preferences are also sometimes extended toward women, athletes and children of alumni. The use of racial preferences may be related to college selectivity; scholars such as law professor Richard Sander have found that preferences are strongest at elite institutions.^{[4][32][33][34]}

Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions. As of March 2015, Alabama was not one of those states. Some universities in Alabama utilize affirmative action; in particular, the University of Alabama engages in a number of outreach programs to recruit minority applicants. No public four-year universities in Alabama reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.^[35]

Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Alabama
School	Race/Ethnicity is...				School selectivity*
	Very important	Important	Considered	Not considered
Alabama A & M University					N/A
Alabama State University					Somewhat selective
Athens State University	N/A				N/A
Auburn University					Less selective
Auburn University at Montgomery					Less selective
Jacksonville State University					N/A
Troy University					Very selective
University of Alabama					Somewhat selective
University of Alabama at Birmingham					Less selective
University of Alabama in Huntsville					Less selective
University of Montevallo					N/A
University of North Alabama					Somewhat selective
University of South Alabama					Less selective
University of West Alabama					Somewhat selective
Sources: The College Board, "Big Future," accessed March 30, 2015 CollegeData, "College 411," accessed March 30, 2015 *Note: This scale of college selectivity comes from The College Board and is measured as follows: Most selective, less than 25 percent admitted; Very selective, 25 percent to 50 percent admitted; Somewhat selective, 50 percent to 75 percent admitted; Less selective, more than 75 percent admitted; Open admission, all or most admitted.

Employment

According to Business and Legal Resources, 28 states have passed their own laws requiring the development of affirmative action plans by state employers or apprenticeship programs. Affirmative action plans are management tools that outline efforts made to increase the proportions of minorities at a company or institution. Such plans typically contain the following:^[36][20]

• numerical analysis of the percentage of minorities employed versus the percentage in the labor pool,
• identification of areas where there is "underutilization" of minorities, or a discrepancy between the above percentages, and
• "specific practical steps" the employer will take to correct this discrepancy.

As of March 2015, Alabama did not have its own state law regarding affirmative action requirements or plans for either public or private employers. In some cases, employers may voluntarily develop affirmative action programs. The Equal Employment/Civil Rights Division of the Department of Human Resources oversees state affirmative action programs.^[37][38]

Alabama does have a nondiscrimination law that identifies the following as protected traits:^[39]

The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least 20 employees.^[39]

Federal requirements

Federal contractors and agencies in Alabama that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.^[37]

Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:^[39]

• Employers with at least four employees must adhere to the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
• Employers with at least 15 employees must adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
• Employers with at least 20 employees must adhere to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
• Employers with any number of employees must adhere to the Equal Pay Act.

All nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in Alabama, including the state law, are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. There is no state agency dedicated to enforcing the state nondiscrimination law.^[39]

Court cases

Knight v. Alabama

John F. Knight

Knight v. State of Alabama was a lengthy federal court case disputing the policies of public higher education institutions in Alabama. The lawsuit was first filed against the state in 1981 by John F. Knight and several persons associated with Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University, two historically black colleges. The plaintiffs argued that the policies of Alabama's higher education system, including its admissions, were racially discriminatory by fostering segregation between its historically black colleges and the rest of the public university system. The case was not heard until 1991 and underwent a second trial in 1995. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered changes to the policies, reserving the right to oversee the progress for 10 years, giving the state a deadline of 2005.^[41]

In 2003, while Alabama's higher education system was still under the supervision of the court, the plaintiffs brought concerns to the court that racially discriminatory property tax laws were preventing Alabama from carrying out the policy changes the court had ordered, "which included developing high-quality programs at Alabama State and Alabama A&M as well as increasing the ability of black students to attend college through scholarships and financial aid." They sought to have the court declare the laws, which had been passed between 1875 to 1978, unconstitutional, claiming that they prevented Alabama from properly funding its K-12 school system and its higher education system, leading to disparities in educational quality between the historically black institutions and other schools in the system. Both the district court and, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the property tax laws had been created with discriminatory intent. However, neither court held the laws unconstitutional, ruling that the plaintiffs could not prove that the laws caused the higher education system to be underfunded, thus leading to segregation. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.^[41][42]

Tompkins v. Alabama State University

Tompkins v. Alabama State University was a case challenging the presence of a scholarship specifically for white students at Alabama State University and Alabama A&M University, two historically black colleges. The scholarship was created per court mandate in 1995 to desegregate the colleges and increase their racial diversity. A suit was filed when Jessie Tompkins and three other students were denied funding from the colleges. In response to a settlement in another case, Alabama State University opened the scholarship to applicants of any race, but Tompkins rejected the settlement. The case was then merged with Knight v. Alabama, since that case dealt with the overall desegregation of historically black colleges in Alabama.^[43][44][45]

United States v. Paradise

United States v. Paradise was a 23-year-long case regarding segregation and affirmative action that began with Paradise v. Allen in 1972. At that time, the Alabama state police was an all-white force, which the governor refused to desegregate. In 1972 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Southern Poverty Law Center brought a suit on behalf of Phillip Paradise and other black citizens who wanted to be state troopers. The suit was filed against Walter Allen, the Alabama Director of Public Safety, and other officials. The plaintiffs claimed that the Alabama Department of Public Safety had violated their civil rights by continuously denying blacks employment on the state police force. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ordered the department to desegregate. For each white trooper hired, the department was to also bring a qualified black trooper onto the force until black troopers comprised 25 percent of the force.^[46][47]

Alabama State Troopers in 1965

The department resisted by limiting the hiring of white troopers, making the training of black troopers hard for them to complete, and denying advancements to black troopers with discriminatory promotion tests. Five years after the initial order, the plaintiffs brought the case back to the district court with a complaint about the promotion practices. This time, the court ordered the department to create a racially neutral plan for promoting officers within one year, which it did not do.^[46][47]

In 1983 the district court ordered the department to promote black officers for 50 percent of open positions until black troopers comprised 25 percent of each rank. The department appealed, but the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the order. The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, where the United States attorney general argued against the promotional quota, though it agreed with the desegregation of the police force.^[47]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ordered promotion plan, holding that the order was "narrowly tailored" and served the "compelling governmental purpose" of remedying past discrimination. In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated that the order did not prevent the promotion of any whites and was necessary due to the department's continued resistance to desegregation.^[46][47][48]

Public opinion

National public opinion polls on affirmative action have yielded mixed results over the past few years. Results found by researchers seem to depend largely on how the question is worded. In particular, support drops considerably when the word "preferences" is included in the question. Supporters of affirmative action are more likely to do so to increase diversity rather than compensate for past injustice.^[49][50]

Opinions also change when the question refers to college admissions specifically, and support and opposition are somewhat divided on racial lines, with black Americans being far more likely to favor affirmative action. In general, support for affirmative action has dropped since its peak in the early 1990s, when a poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61 percent of Americans thought that affirmative action policies were still needed, compared to 45 percent in June 2013.^[51]

Support

Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:^[5][52]

• Diversity is valuable for any workplace or college campus.
• Minority enrollment in college would fall dramatically without affirmative action.
• Affirmative action provides the extra push to disadvantaged students that is needed to succeed.
• By providing minorities with new opportunities, affirmative action may introduce them to other interests they would not have discovered otherwise.
• Affirmative action is necessary to break stereotypes.
• Affirmative action compensates for past injustices.

Opposition

Common arguments stated against affirmative action include the following:^[52]

• Affirmative action policies have caused "reverse discrimination" against whites.
• According to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmative action is unconstitutional.
• Since standards are lowered by preferential treatment, minorities only aim for those lower standards.
• Affirmative action causes a "mismatch effect" of underqualified students, leading to their failure at elite schools.
• Affirmative action is demeaning and condescending to minority achievement.
• It is too difficult to end affirmative action policies after they have been enacted, even when discrimination is no longer an issue.

Agencies

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is "responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." These federal laws typically apply to workplaces with 15 or more employees. The EEOC operates field offices in 15 districts. Alabama is served primarily by the Birmingham District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Alabama.^[53]

In addition, states and localities may have their own anti-discrimination laws. Separate agencies, designated by the EEOC as Fair Employment Practices Agencies, are responsible for enforcing these laws. In Alabama, the Alabama Department of Human Resources, Office of Equal Employment and Civil Rights, is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.^[54][55][56]

Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation

The following is a list of recent affirmative action and anti-discrimination bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Alabama state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Ballot measures

Ballotpedia has not covered any ballot measures relating to affirmative action policy in Alabama.

See also

• Affirmative action
• Higher education in Alabama
• Fourteenth Amendment
• Civil Liberties Policy

External links

• Equal Employment/Civil Rights Division of the Alabama Department of Human Resources
• University of Alabama Office of Equal Opportunity Programs
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Footnotes

	v • e State of Alabama Montgomery (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy