A Comparative Analysis of Affirmative Action in the United Kingdom and United States

Abstract

Based on research conducted during a large-scale European Commission project on international perspectives on positive/affi rmative action measures, the authors provide a comparative analysis of the legal context and perceptions of the impact of positive action in the United Kingdom and the United States. The study adopted participatory methods including consensus workshops, interviews, and legal analysis to obtain data from those individuals responsible for designing and implementing positive action measures. Findings are discussed, conclusions drawn, and wide-ranging recommendations are made at governmental and organizational levels. The authors conclude by suggesting possible implications for policy and argue for widespread awareness-raising campaigns of both the need for positive action measures for disadvantaged groups and the benefi ts of such measures for wider society. They also recommend the adoption of a more coherent and collaborative approach to the utilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of positive or affi rmative action.

An Overview of Affirmative Action Policies in Public Federal Universities in Southeast Brazil

“…In 1965, the then president Lyndon Johnson strengthened affirmative action policies and demanded that companies contracted by the federal government implement non-discriminatory hiring practices and affirmative action policies to combat the effects of the discrimination of previous decades. Shortly afterwards, the gender category was also included in those practices, and in 1972, the same requirements began to be implemented in educational institutions (ARCHIBONG;SHARPS, 2013;BOWEN;BOK, 2004;OLIVEN, 2007;SOWELL, 2004).…”

Equality and Diversity in the Health Service

“…In this context, the term affi rmative or positive action is "an umbrella term covering all kinds of activities, initiatives, strategies, and interventions that seek to achieve one or more of the goals identifi ed for affi rmative action in both employment and service provision" (Archibong & Sharps, 2011, p. 18). However, these eff orts have produced patchy results (Archibong & Sharps, 2011). A 2006 study noted that progress in improving workforce diversity has been slow since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act in 1970 despite a subsequent raft of laws to protect minorities (Evans, 2006).…”

“…Many employers in the UK, even those identifi ed as leaders in equal opportunity policies, do not have eff ective workforce monitoring at even a basic level (Archibong & Sharps, 2011).…”

“…In the early days, diversity work concentrated on redressing the wrongs of the past and improving the diversity of workforce, but these address only part of the picture (Archibong & Sharps, 2011). Th ere is little evidence, for example, of robust, evidence-based policies (Th omas, 2010).…”

Affirmative actions in terms of special rights: Confronting structural violence in Brazilian higher education

“…In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson strengthened affirmative action policies and demanded that companies with federally affiliated contracts use non-discriminatory hiring practices and actions to combat the effects of the discrimination that had occurred in previous decades. Shortly thereafter, the category of gender began to be integrated into affirmative action policies and, in 1972, similar requirements began to be introduced in educational institutions (Archibong and Sharps, 2013;Bowen and Bok, 1998;Oliven, 2007;Sowell, 2004).…”