Affirmative action refers to policies and practices that give preferential consideration to members of groups historically subject to discrimination - most commonly defined by race, sex, or national origin - in contexts such as university admissions, public and private employment, and government contracting. The term covers a wide range of interventions, from outreach programs designed to broaden applicant pools to explicit numerical targets or set-asides. In the United States, affirmative action has been a contested feature of law and institutional policy since the early 1960s and remains an active area of legal, political, and philosophical debate.

The legal foundation for affirmative action in the United States was laid by executive orders requiring federal contractors to take affirmative steps to ensure nondiscrimination, beginning with Executive Order 10925 (1961) under President Kennedy and expanded by Executive Order 11246 (1965) under President Johnson. Federal civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but did not specify whether or how institutions should actively remedy prior discriminatory practices. Courts, agencies, and institutions subsequently developed divergent interpretations of what remediation required or permitted. For a fuller account, see Affirmative Action - History.

Affirmative action policies vary considerably in design. Some establish numerical quotas reserving a fixed percentage of positions for members of specified groups. Others apply preferences as a “plus factor” weighed among many criteria. Still others focus on targeted outreach, pipeline programs, or removing structural barriers without adjusting selection criteria. The legal permissibility of each design has been litigated extensively, and different mechanisms have received different treatment from federal courts.

The Supreme Court's treatment of race-conscious admissions policies evolved through a series of major rulings. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court prohibited rigid quotas while permitting race as one factor among many. Subsequent decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) upheld narrowly tailored race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan law school while striking down a point-based undergraduate system. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), the Court held that race-conscious admissions programs at both institutions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively ending explicitly race-based admissions at colleges and universities receiving federal funding.¹⁾ Some institutions have since explored alternative admissions criteria - such as socioeconomic status or geographic diversity - that may produce racial diversity without explicit race-consciousness.

Outside higher education, affirmative action in employment and contracting was significantly restructured beginning in 2025. Executive Order 14173, issued by President Trump on January 21, 2025, revoked Executive Order 11246 and directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to end race- and sex-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors. Contractors were required to wind down compliance obligations tied to EO 11246 by April 21, 2025. The OFCCP subsequently issued a proposed rule to formally rescind the implementing regulations. Affirmative action obligations for veterans and individuals with disabilities, established by statute under VEVRAA and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, remain in place, though their enforcement has also been in flux. The future of the OFCCP itself remains uncertain, with the administration proposing its elimination and transfer of remaining functions to other agencies. Prior to these changes, federal contractors had been subject to affirmative action obligations under OFCCP-administered regulations, the scope and enforcement of which had varied across administrations.

Several states have enacted ballot initiatives or legislation banning affirmative action in public institutions outright, beginning with California's Proposition 209 (1996). Others have maintained or expanded programs. The result is a patchwork of state-level policy that differs substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

There is no broad scholarly or public consensus on whether affirmative action policies are effective, fair, or desirable. Empirical research on outcomes - including effects on student achievement, workforce diversity, and group representation - has produced contested findings across disciplines. See Affirmative Action - Social Science Consensus for a summary of the state of research.

Legal consensus, as of 2023, holds that explicitly race-conscious admissions programs at federally funded universities are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The permissibility of race-neutral diversity measures and employment-context programs remains more open.

Supporters of race-conscious affirmative action argue that passive nondiscrimination is insufficient to remedy the accumulated effects of historical and ongoing discrimination, that diversity in institutions produces educational and civic benefits, and that group-conscious remedies are justified where group-based harm occurred. See Viewpoint: Race-Conscious Remediation.

Opponents on civil rights / colorblind grounds argue that treating individuals differently based on race violates the core principle of equal protection regardless of remedial intent, that race-consciousness perpetuates rather than dissolves racial categories, and that merit-based selection is itself a civil rights value. See Viewpoint: Colorblind Equality.

Supporters of class-based alternatives argue that socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than race per se, is the appropriate basis for preferential consideration, and that class-based programs can achieve diversity goals while avoiding constitutional and ethical objections to racial classification. See Viewpoint: Class-Based Preference.

Critics from within affected groups - including some members of groups nominally benefited by affirmative action - argue that such policies carry stigmatic costs, generate mismatch effects that harm intended beneficiaries, and undermine confidence in the achievements of individuals from those groups. See Viewpoint: Mismatch and Stigma.

Institutional diversity proponents argue that diversity in specific contexts - particularly military officer corps, medical training, and civic institutions - serves compelling national interests independent of remediation, and that some degree of group-conscious selection is justified to serve those interests. See Viewpoint: Institutional Diversity.

• Affirmative Action - History
• Affirmative Action - Debate
• Affirmative Action - Social Science Consensus
• Civil Rights Act
• Equal Protection Clause
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
• Disparate Impact
• Meritocracy

<footnote> Executive Order 10925, 26 Fed. Reg. 1977 (6 March 1961). Executive Order 11246, 30 Fed. Reg. 12319 (28 September 1965). Executive Order 14173, 90 Fed. Reg. 8339 (21 January 2025). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241. California Proposition 209 (1996), codified at Cal. Const. art. I, § 31. </footnote>