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 New York | |
General information | |
Public four-year schools: 35 | |
Number considering race: 11 | |
State affirmative action law: New York Human Rights Law, NY Exec L § 312 | |
State agency: New York Division of Human Rights | |
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 in New York refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in New York 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 New York, 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.
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]
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]
The following terms are helpful in understanding affirmative action policy:
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, New York was not one of these states. Of 35 public four-year universities in New York, 11 reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.
Consideration of race at public four-year universities in New York | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
School | Race/Ethnicity is... | School selectivity* | |||
Very important | Important | Considered | Not considered | ||
CUNY: Baruch College | Very selective | ||||
CUNY: Brooklyn College | Very selective | ||||
CUNY: City College | Most selective | ||||
CUNY: College of Staten Island | Open admission | ||||
CUNY: Hunter College | Very selective | ||||
CUNY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice | Somewhat selective | ||||
CUNY: Lehman College | N/A | ||||
CUNY: Medgar Evers College | Open admission | ||||
CUNY: New York City College of Technology | N/A | Open admission | |||
CUNY: Queens College | Very selective | ||||
CUNY: York College | Somewhat selective | ||||
Fashion Institute of Technology | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Brockport | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Buffalo | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY College at Cortland | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Fredonia | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY College at Geneseo | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY College at New Paltz | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Old Westbury | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY College at Oneonta | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Oswego | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Plattsburgh | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College at Potsdam | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY College at Purchase | Very selective | ||||
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY Empire State College | Less selective | ||||
SUNY Farmingdale State College | Very selective | ||||
SUNY Institute of Technology at Utica-Rome | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY Maritime College† | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY University at Albany | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY University at Binghamton | Very selective | ||||
SUNY University at Buffalo | Somewhat selective | ||||
SUNY University at Stony Brook | Very selective | ||||
United States Merchant Marine Academy | Most selective | ||||
United States Military Academy | Most selective | ||||
Sources: The College Board, "Big Future," accessed March 30, 2015. Reproduced with permission. 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. †Note: Ballotpedia found conflicting reports on the SUNY Maritime College. According to College Board, the SUNY Maritime College does consider race in admissions; however, College Data reported that the university does not consider race in its admissions decisions. |
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:
|
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]
As of March 2015, New York state law required state contractors to have an affirmative action program to ensure that minority groups and women are afforded equal employment opportunities. Additionally, the New York Human Rights Law permits state agencies and contractors to show preference toward minorities where unemployment numbers for that minority are significantly higher than state-wide unemployment.[35][36][37]
In addition, New York has a nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[38]
“ |
|
” |
The state's nondiscrimination law applies to employers with at least four employees and is enforced by the New York Division of Human Rights.[38]
Federal contractors and agencies in New York 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:[38]
Federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in New York are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[38]
In 1992, Columbia University began looking for a full-time director for its Department of Spanish and Portuguese. The university had decided that the department was one of three departments to follow an affirmative action plan, and appointed a search committee to seek out women and minorities in addition to other qualified individuals. Irwin Stern was one of these individuals. Stern, a white male, had acted as interim director of the department for two years and applied for the position of full-time director. Though he was highly recommended by the other members of the department, the search committee appointed Augustus Puleo, an American male of Hispanic descent, to the directorship.[40]
In 1994, Stern filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which argued that the university never afforded him "a genuine opportunity to compete with candidates from the University's preferred groups." Stern's argument was that he was never a serious candidate because he was not of a member of a minority group. The university claimed it appointed Puleo over Stern because Stern's teaching was far weaker than Puleo's. The court granted summary judgment (judgment without trial) in favor of the university, dismissing the case. The court found that the university had submitted ample evidence that its decision was based on qualifications.[40]
In 1997, the case was appealed and sent to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court decided to overturn the district court's summary judgment. It determined that Stern had presented "genuine issues of fact" that justified a trial, such as that the search committee had stated "it needed more Hispanics in the department in question" and the committee had been comprised of "advisors who lacked proficiency in the skills they were asked to evaluate." The case was sent back to the district court for trial.[40][41]
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.[42][43]
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.[44]
Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][45]
Common arguments stated against affirmative action include the following:[45]
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. New York is served primarily by the New York District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving New York.[46]
EEOC field offices serving New York | ||
---|---|---|
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 New York, the New York State Division of Human Rights is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[47][48][49]
Fair Employment Practices Agencies in New York | |||
---|---|---|---|
Office | Location | Phone number | Website |
New York State Division of Human Rights | Bronx, New York | (888) 392-3644 | Link |
The following is a list of recent affirmative action and anti-discrimination bills that have been introduced in or passed by the New York 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.
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs named sffa
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs named apsffa