Affirmative action in Massachusetts

in  Massachusetts

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

* * *

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 Massachusetts

General information
Public four-year schools:

Number considering race:

State affirmative action law:
Executive Order No. 526
State agency:
•Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
•Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity
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

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Key terms
* 2 University admissions
* 3 Employment
* 3.1 Federal requirements
* 4 Court cases
* 4.1 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
* 5 Public opinion
* 5.1 Support
* 5.2 Opposition
* 6 Agencies
* 7 Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

Affirmative action in Massachusetts refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

HIGHLIGHTS

* In Massachusetts, four public universities reported considering race in admissions as of March 2015.

* Executive Order No. 526, issued February 17, 2011, outlines affirmative action requirements for employers.

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[edit]

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.[2][4][5][6]

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.[2][4][6][7][8]

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.[4][5][9]

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.[10][11]

### Key terms[edit]

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.[12][13]
* 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.[14][15][16]
* 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.[17][18]
* 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.[19][20]
* 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.[21][22][23]
* 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.[24][25]
* 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.[26]
* 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.[27][28][29]

## University admissions[edit]

See also: Higher education in Massachusetts

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.[2][4][30]

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 towards 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.[2][31][32][33]

Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions. As of March 2015, Massachusetts was not one of these states. Of 13 public four-year universities in Massachusetts, four reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.

Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Massachusetts

School  | Race/Ethnicity is...  | School selectivity*
Very important  | Important  | Considered  | Not considered
Bridgewater State University |  |  |

|  | Less selective
Fitchburg State University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Framingham State University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Massachusetts College of Art and Design |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Massachusetts Maritime Academy |  |  |  |

| N/A
Salem State University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Massachusetts Amherst |  |  |

|  | Somewhat selective
University of Massachusetts Boston |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth |  |  |  |

| Less selective
University of Massachusetts Lowell |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Westfield State University |  |  |

|  | Somewhat selective
Worcester State University |  |  |

|  | 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.

About the data

Information on which colleges consider race in admissions came from individual college profiles provided by two websites that aim to assist students in choosing a college: The College Board and CollegeData. Such information was reported to The College Board by the colleges themselves. Note that schools may have updated their policies since reporting them. To see the data:

1. College Board: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Click "Applying" on the side menu and scroll down. Listed will be several criteria of admission into the college, separated by importance. If Race/Ethnicity is not listed, it was not reported as considered by the college's admissions officers.
2. CollegeData: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Scroll down to the section titled "Selection of Students" to see a chart of admission criteria ranked from "Very Important" to "Not Considered."

| Click for links to school profiles

School  | School profiles  | School  | School profiles
College Board  | College Data  | College Board  | College Data
Bridgewater State University | Link | Link | Fitchburg State University | Link | Link
Framingham State University | Link | Link | Massachusetts College of Art and Design | Link | Link
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts | Link | Link | Massachusetts Maritime Academy | Link | Link
Salem State University | Link | Link | University of Massachusetts Amherst | Link | Link
University of Massachusetts Boston | Link | Link | University of Massachusetts Dartmouth | Link | Link
University of Massachusetts Lowell | Link | Link | Westfield State University | Link | Link
Worcester State University | Link | Link |

## Employment[edit]

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:[34][19]

* 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.

Massachusetts' affirmative action law comes from Executive Order No. 526, issued by former Governor Deval Patrick (D) on February 17, 2011. The order requires all state agencies and departments to develop affirmative action plans and update them at least every two years. They must identify discriminatory effects and barriers and develop goals for recruiting and hiring underrepresented minorities and eliminating any remnants of discrimination. The order also stipulates that each executive cabinet must appoint a diversity director and each state agency must appoint a diversity officer. The order is enforced by the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity.[35][36]

See order: Executive Order No. 526

Massachusetts also has a nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[37]

“  |

* Race
* Color
* National origin
* Religion
* Sex
* Disability: physical or mental
* Age (40 and older)
* Genetic information
* Marital status
* Sexual orientation
* Military service
* Arrest record
* Gender identity[38]

| ”

|
|

The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least six employees and is enforced by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.[37]

### Federal requirements[edit]

Federal contractors and agencies in Massachusetts that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.[35]

Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:[37]

* 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.

Federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in Massachusetts are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[37]

## Court cases[edit]

### Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College[edit]

See also: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College

Harvard University

In November 2014, Students for Fair Admissions, funded by the Project on Fair Representation, filed a lawsuit against Harvard College on behalf of an anonymous high-achieving Asian American student who was denied admission to the school. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, the group claimed that there have been separate admissions standards for Asians and Asian Americans and students of other races, stating that "all other racial and ethnic groups are insulated from competing against high-achieving Asian Americans." The group stated it believed Harvard College has not been meeting standards set by the United States Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas requiring universities to consider race-neutral alternatives before using racial preferences. Instead, they said, "the university maintains a quota-like system." Harvard has asserted its consideration of race in admissions is within legal bounds.[39][40][41]

The Project on Fair Representation is the same organization that financed the lawsuit brought by Abigail Fisher in Fisher v. University of Texas, in which the United States Supreme Court placed heavier burdens on universities to prove that their consideration of race in admissions is narrowly tailored and that racial diversity could not be achieved via any other method when they use such policies. The organization states on their website, "It is our belief that Harvard has not followed the Supreme Court’s instructions and it is vulnerable to a lawsuit."[39][42]

In October 2019, a judge ruled that Harvard College's admissions policies did not unduly discriminate against Asian Americans and that no quotas were in place. In February 2020, Students for Fair Admissions filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The court of appeals ruled in favor of Harvard later that year, concluding that Judge Burroughs made no errors in her ruling or factual findings. Students for Fair Admissions then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the First Circuit's decisions in the Harvard case and a similar case called Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. The Supreme Court heard both cases in their 2022–2023 term.[43][44]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., in a 6-3 decision. The ruling effectively ended race-based considerations in college admission, but explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.[11][45]

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that, "... the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin."[46] In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, "the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society."[46]

## Public opinion[edit]

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.[47][48]

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.[49]

### Support[edit]

Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][50]

* 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[edit]

Common arguments stated against affirmative action include the following:[50]

* 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[edit]

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. Massachusetts is served primarily by the New York District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Massachusetts.[51]

EEOC field offices serving Massachusetts

Office  | Location  | Website
New York District Office | New York, New York | Link
Boston Area Office | Boston, Massachusetts | Link
Newark Area Office | Newark, New Jersey | Link
Buffalo Local Office | Buffalo, New York | Link

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 Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[52][53][54]

Fair Employment Practices Agencies in Massachusetts

Office  | Location  | Phone number  | Website
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination | Boston, Massachusetts | (617) 994-6000 | Link

## Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation[edit]

The following is a list of recent affirmative action and anti-discrimination bills that have been introduced in or passed by the  Massachusetts 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.

## See also[edit]

* Affirmative action
* Affirmative action ballot measures
* Higher education in Massachusetts
* Fourteenth Amendment
* Civil Liberties Policy

## External links[edit]

* Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity
* Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
3. ↑ Business and Legal Resources, "Affirmative Action," accessed March 31, 2015
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action | Overview," February 7, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Infoplease, "Affirmative Action History," accessed February 10, 2015
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Infoplease, "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones," accessed February 10, 2015
7. ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
8. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
9. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke," accessed May 28, 2015
10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `sffa`
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 AP News, "Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can’t be used," accessed June 29, 2023
12. ↑ FindLaw, "What is Discrimination?" accessed May 29, 2015
13. ↑ Merriam-Webster, "Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
14. ↑ The Brookings Institution, "Racial and Ethnic Preference," November 1996
15. ↑ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, "Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy," accessed May 28, 2015
16. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
17. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Reverse discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
18. ↑ FindLaw, "Reverse Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Society for Human Resource Management, "EEO: General: What is the difference between EEO, affirmative action and diversity?" September 20, 2012
20. ↑ Study.com, "What is Equal Employment Opportunity? - Definition, Laws & Policies," accessed May 29, 2015
21. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
22. ↑ Luther College, "What Is Diversity?" accessed May 29, 2015
23. ↑ Association of American Colleges and Universities, "Broadening Our Definition of Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
24. ↑ The Atlantic, "The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action," October 2, 2012
25. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
26. ↑ US Legal Definitions, "Quota System Law & Legal Definition," accessed November 12, 2015
27. ↑ National Review, "Half a Win on Racial Discrimination," accessed November 12, 2015
28. ↑ Newsmax "Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good," May 2, 2005
29. ↑ Investopedia, "Ratchet Effect," accessed December 19, 2017
30. ↑ Higher Ed Jobs, "Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action," accessed March 25, 2015
31. ↑ PBS, "Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies," May 19, 2015
32. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
33. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
34. ↑ MIT Human Resources: Diversity & Inclusion, "What is an Affirmative Action Plan," accessed May 28, 2015
35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Business and Legal Resources, "Massachusetts Affirmative Action: What you need to know," accessed March 31, 2015
36. ↑ The Official Website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Executive Order No. 526," accessed May 21, 2015
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 Nolo, "Employment Discrimination in Massachusetts," accessed April 23, 2015
38. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Bloomberg Business, "Harvard, UNC Sued Over Race-Based Admissions," November 17, 2014
40. ↑ Justia, "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al," accessed April 23, 2015
41. ↑ Students for Fair Admissions, "Legal Issues," accessed May 26, 2015
42. ↑ Harvard University Not Fair, "Legal Issues," accessed April 20, 2015
43. ↑ The New York Times, “The Affirmative Action Battle at Harvard Is Not Over,” August 3, 2022
44. ↑ Reuters, “Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Affirmative Action at Harvard and U.N.C.,” August 3, 2022
45. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions," accessed June 29, 2023
46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," accessed June 29, 2023
47. ↑ The New York Times, "Answers on Affirmative Action Depend on How You Pose the Question," April 22, 2014
48. ↑ CBS News, "Poll: Slim majority backs same-sex marriage," June 6, 2013
49. ↑ NBC News, "NBC News/WSJ poll: Affirmative action support at historic low," June 11, 2013
50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 BalancedPolitics.org, "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" accessed February 16, 2015
51. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Office List and Jurisdictional Map," accessed November 12, 2015
52. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing," accessed November 12, 2015
53. ↑ TheLaw.com, "List of State Fair Employment Practices Agencies," accessed November 12, 2015
54. ↑ Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, "Home," accessed November 12, 2015

v • e

State of Massachusetts
Boston (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates