Affirmative action in Maryland

in  Maryland

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

* * *

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 Maryland

General information
Public four-year schools:

Number considering race:

State affirmative action law:
N/A
State agency:
•Maryland Commission on Human Relations
•Office of the Statewide Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator
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 Farmer v. Ramsay
* 4.2 Podberesky v. Kirwan
* 4.3 Maryland Troopers Association, Incorporated v. Evans
* 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 Maryland refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Maryland 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 Maryland, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

HIGHLIGHTS

* In Maryland, five public universities reported considering race in admissions as of March 2015.

* At that time there was no state law regarding 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 Maryland

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, Maryland was not one of these states. Of 13 public four-year universities in Maryland, five reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.

Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Maryland

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

| Somewhat selective
Coppin State University[34] |  |  |  |

| N/A
Frostburg State University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Morgan State University |  |  |  |

| Very selective
Salisbury University |  |  |

|  | Somewhat selective
St Mary's College of Maryland |  |  |

|  | Less selective
Towson University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
United States Naval Academy |  |  |

|  | Most selective
University of Baltimore |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Maryland: Baltimore County |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Maryland: College Park |  |  |

|  | Very selective
University of Maryland: Eastern Shore |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Maryland: University College |  |  |  |

| Open admission
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
Bowie State University | Link | Link | Coppin State University | Link | Link
Frostburg State University | Link | Link | Morgan State University | Link | Link
Salisbury University | Link | Link | St Mary's College of Maryland | Link | Link
Towson University | Link | Link | United States Naval Academy | Link | Link
University of Baltimore | Link | Link | University of Maryland: Baltimore County | Link | Link
University of Maryland: College Park | Link | Link | University of Maryland: Eastern Shore | Link | Link
University of Maryland: University College | 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:[35][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.

As of March 2015, Maryland had not passed its own state law regarding affirmative action requirements or plans for public or private employers. However, Maryland has established a statewide equal employment opportunity (EEO) program and requires each agency to develop its own EEO program. The program is enforced by the Office of the Statewide Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator.[36][37]

Maryland also has a state nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[38]

“  |

* Race
* Color
* National origin
* Religion
* Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
* Disability: physical or mental
* Age
* Genetic information
* Marital status
* Sexual orientation[39]

| ”

|
|

The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least 15 employees and is enforced by the Maryland Commission on Human Relations.[38]

### Federal requirements[edit]

Federal contractors and agencies in Maryland that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.[36]

Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:[38]

* 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 Maryland are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[38]

## Court cases[edit]

### Farmer v. Ramsay[edit]

In the early 1990s, the University of Maryland School of Medicine considered race in its admissions process, along with academic qualifications and personal characteristics. After Rob Farmer, a white male, was rejected from the medical school three times, he filed a lawsuit, claiming that that the university's admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Farmer cited the admission of black students with lower credentials than his as evidence of the university's discrimination against him.[40][41]

In 2001, a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Farmer's claim, finding that Farmer's rejection was due to his inconsistent explanation of his arrest record, his weak recommendations, and his disparagement of the medical field in his personal statement. The opinion was affirmed on appeal by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.[40][41][42]

### Podberesky v. Kirwan[edit]

University of Maryland at College Park

In 1994, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that race-based scholarships provided by the University of Maryland at College Park were unconstitutional. Prior to the ruling, the university had offered a merit scholarship open only to black students, the Banneker scholarship, and a separate merit scholarship open to everyone. Daniel Podberesky, a Hispanic student, qualified in every way for the Benneker scholarship except for his race. His qualifications were too low for the other scholarship.[43]

Podberesky filed a lawsuit with the claim that the scholarship program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland found in favor of the university, but on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court overturned the decision, finding the program to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court ruled that the university failed to demonstrate both that vestiges of discrimination still exist at its institution, and that the program was narrowly tailored to mitigate such discrimination. The university was ordered to reconsider Podberesky's application, excluding the race factor.[43]

### Maryland Troopers Association, Incorporated v. Evans[edit]

Over the sixteen years between 1974 and 1990, the Maryland State Police entered into several agreements and consent decrees to alter its hiring policy, setting policies of hiring and promoting specific numbers and percentages of black troopers in order to remedy past discrimination. Between 1980 and 1991, the percentage of black troopers on the force increased from 9.5 percent to 17.1 percent, and black troopers comprised 20 percent of the promotions given. However, in 1990 the Maryland State Police entered into another agreement with Coalition of Black Maryland State Troopers that was the result of a 1985 lawsuit. The agreement required the Maryland State Police to adopt a specific promotions policy until the overall police force was 22 percent black. The Maryland Troopers Association intervened in opposition, but the United States District Court for the District of Maryland rejected the challenge and ordered Maryland State Police to adopt the policy.[44]

This decision was overturned on appeal by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after considering whether the policy was necessary and narrowly tailored. The court stated that it did not have to decide whether or not the policy was narrowly tailored because there was not a "strong basis in evidence" showing that the police force was still discriminatory and such a policy was necessary. The primary evidence provided by the state to justify the policy was the discrepancy between the percentage of the black population eligible for a position with the Maryland State police and the percentage on the force, as well as the percentage of black troopers in higher ranks and the percentage of the black population in equivalent job categories. The court declared that such evidence was deficient and inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.[44]

## 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.[45][46]

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.[47]

### Support[edit]

Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][48]

* 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:[48]

* 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. Maryland is served primarily by the Philadelphia District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Maryland.[49]

EEOC field offices serving Maryland

Office  | Location  | Website
Philadelphia District Office | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Link
Baltimore Field Office | Baltimore, Maryland | Link
Cleveland Field Office | Cleveland, Ohio | Link
Pittsburgh Area Office | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | 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 Maryland, the Maryland Commission on Human Relations is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[50][51][52]

Fair Employment Practices Agencies in Maryland

Office  | Location  | Phone number  | Website
Maryland Commission on Human Relations | Baltimore, Maryland | (410) 767-8600 | 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  Maryland 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 Maryland
* Fourteenth Amendment
* Civil Liberties Policy

## External links[edit]

* Office of the Statewide Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator
* Maryland Commission on Civil Rights
* 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. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `apsffa`
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. ↑ Email correspondence with Robyn McCullough dated August 23, 2022.
35. ↑ MIT Human Resources: Diversity & Inclusion, "What is an Affirmative Action Plan," accessed May 28, 2015
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Business and Legal Resources, "Maryland Affirmative Action: What you need to know," accessed March 31, 2015
37. ↑ Maryland Department of Management and Budget, "Title 5 Subtitle 2. Equal Employment Opportunity Program in the Executive Branch of State Government," accessed May 21, 2015
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Nolo, "Employment Discrimination in Maryland," accessed April 20, 2015
39. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: Court Decisions," accessed April 20, 2015
41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Leagle, "Farmer v. Ramsay," accessed April 20, 2015
42. ↑ eCases, "Farmer v. Ramsay," accessed April 20, 2015
43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Clearinghouse of North Carolina School Law, "University’s race-based scholarship program unconstitutional," accessed April 20, 2015
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Open Jurist, "993 F. 2d 1072 - Maryland Troopers Association Incorporated Tfc v. M Evans," accessed April 20, 2015
45. ↑ The New York Times, "Answers on Affirmative Action Depend on How You Pose the Question," April 22, 2014
46. ↑ CBS News, "Poll: Slim majority backs same-sex marriage," June 6, 2013
47. ↑ NBC News, "NBC News/WSJ poll: Affirmative action support at historic low," June 11, 2013
48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 BalancedPolitics.org, "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" accessed February 16, 2015
49. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Office List and Jurisdictional Map," accessed November 12, 2015
50. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing," accessed November 12, 2015
51. ↑ TheLaw.com, "List of State Fair Employment Practices Agencies," accessed November 12, 2015
52. ↑ Maryland Commission on Human Relations, "Maryland Commission on Human Relations," accessed November 13, 2015

v • e

State of Maryland
Annapolis (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