In 1964, in response to a growing and vocal Civil Rights Movement, the US Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits race discrimination in any program receiving federal funds. In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which stated that "It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because Or race, creed, color or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each department and agency." Two years later the order was amended (Executive Order 11375) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Executive Order 11246 requires federal contractors to adopt and implement "affirmative action programs" to promote attainment of equal employment objectives. Affirmative action "broadly encompasses any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice adopted to correct or compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future."
Since President Kennedy first used the term "Affirmative Action" in 1961, it has been at the heart of a political and legal struggle to define how broadly equal opportunity is to be defined and what steps can be taken to ensure that equal opportunity. One side of the debate focuses on individual rights and see affirmative action taking rights away from white and in some cases Asian-American men. The other side see a history of discrimination is still unresolved. This presentation will review some of that history as it applies to higher education. The political arguments from divergent vantage points will be examined. Key landmark legislation (Civil Rights Act 1964, California's Initiative 209 and Washington's I-200), government policy (Executive Orders, University admissions and financial aid policies) and judicial actions (Bakke and Hopwood decisions) will be examined to determine trends and to examine what options remain open to policy makers.
Abstract 4/19 presentation on Maternity Leave Laws and Policies at UW
Is childbearing incompatible with a career in science? There is no obvious reason why it might be, as a scientific career depends largely on mental abilities and not at all on the effects of a temporary non-work related condition such as pregnancy. However, there are widespread policies that fail to adequately address the rights of working parents and do not reflect support for the changing composition of the American workforce. These inadequacies coupled with the time-consuming demands of the scientific career development process may reflect the perceived chilly climate in science fields and be systematically discouraging young women from pursuing higher achievement in science. I will focus on the physical manifestation of this issue that discriminates more exclusively against pregnant women. This includes maternity leave benefits and the basic rights derived from missing work before and after the birth of a child.
The policies of the University of Washington on this issue are in accordance with Washington State and federal legislation. The impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 will be examined especially with regard to faculty and graduate students in science, math, and engineering departments. The national context of this complex issue will be discussed as well as the history of working mothers' rights. Also, the major science climate issues will be introduced and the very small and large restructuring changes that may be necessary to provide an equal opportunity for women to succeed in science will be suggested. The policies of a few progressive departments in this country will be presented which will lead to a critical examination of the system at UW and opportunities for policy improvement, especially for graduate students. Please read the excellent article on reserve.
Back to Readings List
Back to Course Home Page