Affirmative Action

In this commentary, senior research associate Laudan Aron explores the dark side of a booming business -- matching American men with foreign women -- and what should be done to protect "mail-order brides."

Racial discrimination clearly persists in the labor market, though it is more powerful against some groups of minorities than others. While employer discrimination occurs less frequently than in earlier generations, its direct and indirect effects likely remain important. A range of approaches might be useful in reducing hiring discrimination, though the cost-effectiveness of each is not really known right now.

In this paper we review the research evidence on the effects of affirmative action in employment, university admissions and government procurement. We consider effects on both equity (or distribution) as well as efficiency. Overall, we find that affirmative action does redistribute jobs, university admissions and government contracts away from white males towards minorities and females, though the overall magnitudes of these shifts are relatively modest. We also find that affirmative action shifts jobs and university admissions to minorities who have weaker credentials, but there is little solid evidence to date of weaker labor market performance among its beneficiaries. While those students admitted to universities under affirmative action have weaker grades and higher dropout rates than their white counterparts at selective schools, they seem to benefit overall in terms of higher graduation rates and later salaries. Affirmative action also generates positive externalities for the minority and low-income communities (in terms of better medical services and labor market contacts), and perhaps for employers and universities as well. More research on a variety of these issues is also clearly needed.

Affirmative action is a program in flux--regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on the University of Michigan cases. New issues and changes in rationale and objectives are shaping its evolution. Panelists at this Urban Institute-Georgetown Public Policy Institute forum discussed the changing approaches to affirmative action, considered recent evidence on the program's effectiveness, and debated how affirmative action should be evolving in the 21st century.

In March, 1998, the Urban Institute, with support from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), convened a conference that involved many of the best-known researchers working on the measurement of discrimination. The goals of the conference were to explore the feasibility and merits of creating a national report card on discrimination, assess the role that paired testing and other social science methodologies might play in its formulation, and identify the pilot research needed for the report card's full implementation.

Despite the passionate national debate over affirmative action, little attention has been paid to the fairness of government contracting--a potentially important factor for minority economic progress. To provide a national picture of how minority-owned firms are doing in the area of government contracting, the Urban Institute carried out a study of the extent to which minority-owned firms receive a representative share of state and local government contract dollars. The study reveals substantial disparities between the share of contract dollars received by minority-owned firms and the share of all firms that they represent. This report surveys the evidence, examines the economic and policy context, suggests a research agenda, and offers conclusions based on the data.

In summer 1989, a hiring audit of randomly selected employers in Chicago and San Diego found substantial disparities in the treatment of Hispanic and Anglo job seekers. The audit was designed to detect discrimination on the basis of foreign accent or appearance as part of a General Accounting Office investigation of the employer sanctions provisions of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. A significant portion of the differences resulted from discrimination, the authors believe, though not necessarily because of employer sanctions.

Documents the historical evolution of presidential responsibility for enforcing civil rights law. Second, it describes the Reagan administration's record in carrying out that responsibility.