Editing Affirmative action (section)

=== North America ===

==== Canada ====
{{Further|Employment equity (Canada)|Federal Contractors' Program}}
The equality section of the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] explicitly permits affirmative action legislation, although the Charter does not ''require'' legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of [[Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|Section 15]] states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Heritage |first=Canadian |date=2017-10-23 |title=Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms |url=https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=www.canada.ca}}</ref>

The Canadian [[Employment Equity Act]] requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and [[visible minorities]]. Less than one-third of Canadian Universities offer alternative admission requirements for students of aboriginal descent. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action policies. For example, in the [[Northwest Territories]] in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/employment/affirmativeaction/ |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120803122042/http://www.hr.gov.nt.ca/employment/affirmativeaction/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=3 August 2012 |title=GNWT – Human Resources – Affirmative Action |publisher=Hr.gov.nt.ca |date=3 April 2012 |access-date=11 April 2012}}</ref>

==== United States ====
{{Main|Affirmative action in the United States}}
The United States' policy of affirmative action dates to the [[Reconstruction Era]] in the United States, 1863–1877.<ref name="Melvin 2020">Melvin I. Urofsky,  ''The Affirmative Action Puzzle: A Living History From Reconstruction to Today'' (2020).</ref>  Current policy was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat [[racial discrimination]] in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.<ref name="clinton2.nara.gov">{{cite web |date=19 July 1995 |title=Affirmative Action: History and Rationale |url=http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110527065435/http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html |archive-date=27 May 2011 |access-date=6 December 2018 |publisher=Clinton Administration's Affirmative Action Review: Report to the President}}</ref> During this time, the legal and [[United States Constitution|constitutional]] legitimacy of affirmative action has been the subject of several court cases.<ref name="indystar.com">[http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080205/LOCAL/80205048 Indy fire-fighters sue city, charge bias; also see] [[Norma M. Riccucci]]. Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2002</ref>

Affirmative action was first created from [[Executive Order 10925]], which was signed by President [[John F. Kennedy]] on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "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" but did not require or permit group preferences.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://shfg.org/shfg/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/4-MacLaury-design4-new_Layout-1.pdf|title=President Kennedy's E.O.10925: Seedbed of Affirmative Action|publisher=Society for History in the Federal Government|access-date=27 September 2015|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304083942/http://shfg.org/shfg/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/4-MacLaury-design4-new_Layout-1.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| publisher = U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
| title = Executive Order 10925 – Establishing The President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity
| url = http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html
| access-date = 5 February 2010
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100527213307/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html
| archive-date = 27 May 2010
| url-status = dead
}}</ref>

On 24 September 1965, President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed [[Executive Order 11246]], thereby replacing [[Executive Order 10925]], but continued to use the same terminology that did not require or permit group preferences.<ref name="The Federal Register">{{cite web |title=Executive Order 11246—Equal employment opportunity |url=https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100330083544/http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html |archive-date=30 March 2010 |access-date=5 February 2010 |work=The Federal Register}}</ref> Affirmative action was extended to sex by [[Executive Order 11375]] which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].<ref name="Affirmative Action"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/09/24/executive-order-11246-and-affirmative-action/|title=Executive Order 11246 and Affirmative Action « Publishing the Long Civil Rights Movement|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141019155311/https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/09/24/executive-order-11246-and-affirmative-action/|archive-date=19 October 2014}}</ref> The Civil Rights Acts do not cover discrimination based on veteran status, disabilities, or age that is 40 years and older. These groups may be protected from discrimination under different laws.<ref name="EmployeeIssues.com">{{cite web|url=http://employeeissues.com/discrimination_laws.htm|title=Federal Employment Discrimination Laws|publisher=EmployeeIssues.com|access-date=18 May 2010}}</ref> 

Some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California ([[California Civil Rights Initiative]]), Michigan ([[Michigan Civil Rights Initiative]]), and Washington ([[Initiative 200]]) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states.<ref name="pew">{{cite web |last1=DeSilver |first1=Drew |title=Supreme Court says states can ban affirmative action; 8 already have |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/22/supreme-court-says-states-can-ban-affirmative-action-8-already-have/ |website=Pew Research Center |publisher=The Pew Charitable Trusts |access-date=24 October 2021 |date=22 April 2014}}</ref> 

Since the 1990s, conservative groups have increasingly suggested that college quotas have been used to illegally discriminate against people on the basis of race, and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.<ref>{{cite book|author=Steven M. Teles|title=The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MTps-NK20jAC&pg=PA235|year=2010|publisher=Princeton University Press|pages=235–37|isbn=978-1400829699}}</ref> In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'', 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.<ref name="Supct.law.cornell.edu">{{cite web |date=27 June 2002 |title=Highlights of the 2002–2003 Supreme Court Term |url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/03highlts.html#2 |access-date=1 September 2013 |publisher=Supct.law.cornell.edu}}</ref> In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "States may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions". By that time eight states, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Michigan, Florida, Washington and California, had already banned affirmative action.<ref name="pew" /> On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 6–2 that the use of race in college admissions is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-06-29 |title=Supreme Court bans colleges from considering race in admissions |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-strike-affirmative-action-university-b2366556.html |access-date=2025-02-27 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref>