BAKKE, WEBER, AND RACE IN EMPLOYMENT: ANALYSIS OF INFORMED OPINION

In: Policy studies journal: the journal of the Policy Studies Organization, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 383-391

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe article reports research on informed opinion as to linkage between Bakke and the discretionary use of race in private employment practice. Of particular concern is the legal parallel between the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title 6 as applied in Bakke and Title 7 as it relates to Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber and to other employment cases. The principal research entailed Q‐methodology, a technique allowing respondents to produce and present a structured attitude (mind set) with regard to an issue or controversy. Focus of the study was upon 1) respondent values or norms as to race in employment; 2) opinions as to the impact of Bakke upon race in employment; and 3) perceptions of Bakke as portent of things to come. Responses were made in the Fall of 1978. Respondents were from groups indicating interest in Bakke, together with university teachers in relevant fields. Factor analysis of responses revealed three principal attitudes. One attitude (Factor I) strongly affirms race‐conscious affirmative action, including quotas, sharply condemned the Supreme Court for abrogating (in Bakke) its responsibility for protecting minority rights, and saw Bakke as a portent of unwelcome things. Factor II condemns any consideration of race in programs of admission or employment, predicted some beneficial legacy of Bakke, but was most critical of its deference to racial considerations. Factor III is pragmatic and was supportive of the Supreme Court Bakke decision, from which it projected beneficial consequences. Factor III accepts the discretionary use of race while rejecting quotas. Survey research conducted by others reveals that a public majority holds opinions most congruent with Factor III. In the employment area specifically, a majority rejects quotas but endorses minority training programs. The 1979 Weber decision gives a limited sanction to voluntary quotas, but does not exceed the range of tolerance set by a public permissive in this particular policy area.