Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and the New Public Service Week 5 Assignment

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 911

O ne of the defi ning challenges of the ongoing

transition from government-centered to

multisectored models of new governance

in the 21st century is maintaining the values that one

cherishes in a democracy. One value that has

historically been pursued in the administrative state

is attaining a workforce that “looks like America.”

For some, this means having a public workforce that

refl ects America’s diversity (passive representation),

with less concern about whether that representation

infl uences the substantive policy outputs of public

agencies (active representation). To others, looking

like America is important so that all groups —

especially historically underrepresented or excluded

groups — can actively promote and implement public

policies that refl ect the needs, values, and aspirations

of the groups they represent.

Passive representation is viewed as a worthwhile aim

of public policy because the public service has always

been a vehicle of social mobility for groups that

historically have been disadvantaged in the labor

market, and it implies a symbolic commitment to

equal access to power. Furthermore, the bureaucracy

is, and should be, more refl ective of the economic

stature of most Americans than elected offi cials

because of its role in the policy process. Moreover, in a

global economy — and with a foreign policy premised

on human rights and dignity — lacking a diverse

workforce is embarrassing to the United States,

undermines its credibility, and hurts its business

success in dealing with other nations. Meanwhile,

active representation is valued because the operations

and policies of a demographically diverse agency will

look very diff erent from what they would be if the

agency’s workforce were homogeneous.

To these ends, for over a half-century, the United

States has pursued a more diverse workforce, fi rst

through an emphasis on equal opportunity and later

through affi rmative action policies (see table 1 on the

PAR Web site). Th ese eff orts have come through an

amalgam of federal and state legislation, executive

orders, administrative rules, and judicial decisions.

With the exception of the abortion issue, this

morphing from equal employment opportunity to

an affi rmative action (henceforth, AA) approach to

representation has ignited the most heated and

divisive controversies over social policy that this

nation has endured in the 20th century.

Th e battle has been led by both passionate advocates

and opponents ( Holzer and Neumark 2000a; Jones

2005; Sabbagh 2003 ). To some proponents, moving

away from AA as the primary tool for bringing about

both passive and active representation in the United

States would violate the nation’s constitutional

covenant with its citizens. It is misguided, they argue,

to ignore the fact that stubborn remnants of race,

ethnicity, and gender remain in the hiring, promotion,

and retention decisions in the public, private, and

nonprofi t sectors of this nation. Th us, relaxing AA

pressures would only undermine the progress made

over the past four decades in these areas. Moreover,

given the movement from government-centered to

multisectored models of governance that has taken

place in recent years, some worry that private and

nonprofi t organizations may be less focused on

promoting diversity in their workforces, thereby

compromising the nation’s aspirations toward equal

opportunity for all Americans.

To opponents, however, AA is an equally divisive form

of reverse discrimination that is not needed precisely

because of the progress that has been made in the

antidiscrimination area. Th ey are joined by others

who argue that AA, at least on the basis of race and

ethnicity, makes little sense given the changing racial-

ethnic composition of today’s (and likely tomorrow’s)

population. To others, the continued migration of

workers from around the world into the United

States, coupled with the demographic projections of

the U.S. labor force by race and ethnicity, suggest we

will no longer be able to classify U.S. workers using

the fi ve traditional racial and ethnic groups. Others in

this “beyond AA” camp argue that recruitment is not

Sally Coleman Selden Lynchburg College

A Solution in Search of a Problem? Discrimination,

Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service

Sally Coleman Selden is an associate

professor at Lynchburg College. Her current

research focuses on strategic human

resource management in state governments

and the impact of collaboration on

nonprofi t organizational effectiveness.

She has published articles in the American Journal of Political Science, Administration & Society, American Review of Public Administration, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Journal of Public Administration Education, Public Administration Review, and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. E-mail: [email protected].

Theory to Practice

912 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

the problem (i.e., the recruitment “pipeline” is full);

rather, the problem is the retention of diverse workers.

Diversity management, therefore, is the key to grow-

ing, nurturing, and empowering a heterogeneous

workforce.

Has AA’s time passed, either politically, substantively,

or in impact? A complete review of the host of ques-

tions that must be answered to inform such an inquiry

would be impractical. Consequently, this article

focuses on what prior research tells us about four

important dimensions of this question that beg

understanding before an informed answer can be

given. First, what does prior research tell us about

where the public stands on AA? Second, what does it

tell us about where AA presently stands in terms of

state legislatures, the courts, and civil society? Th ird,

as a guide to arguing the merits and demerits of AA in

the future, what does prior research tell us about what

AA has accomplished so far in light of its passive and

active representation goals? Finally, in an era of new

governance, does a movement from government-

centered to multisectored workforces compromise the

aims of AA if it is dismantled?

Reviewing a robust and still growing body of research

related to these questions, this article culls eight

general lessons related to AA that practitioners and

researchers should ponder as they work with or study

the future of AA in the new governance era. Perhaps

the most important lesson for society more broadly is

that AA is not a solution that is chasing a problem

from a bygone era. Today’s residual problems will

likely require redefi nition and new solutions — a

refocus that will aff ect public, private, and nonprofi t

organizations as the United States moves from a

government- centered to a multisectored model of

public service.

Divided It Falls? Where do Americans stand politically on AA? Neither

practitioners nor scholars will be surprised to learn

that public opinion is highly divided on this issue. But

the real questions are how consistent are these polls,

whether citizens are more or less divided in light of the

broader discussions they have heard in the media over

the years, and whether opinion is fi xed or has shifted

over time. Prior research indicates that the durability

of AA rests on a precarious and declining base of

public support in the United States, with racial gaps in

perceptions that are real, enduring, and divisive.

Lesson 1: Citizens remain confl icted about AA, support

for AA varies slightly across time and polls, and the

results vary across time and by race. As illustrated in

greater detail and with graphs in the longer version of

this article on the PAR Web site (see fi gures 1 – 3), polling

results indicate that support for AA varies slightly across

time and opinion polls ( Jones 2005 ). A comparison of

public opinion polls administered by CBS News and

the Gallup Organization demonstrate this fl uctuation.

Compared to 2003 polling data, the results of a January

2006 CBS poll suggest that the American people are

growing impatient with AA programs (CBS News

2006 ). Th e level of support for continuing AA programs

has decreased substantially over the past three years. In

2003, the polling organization found that 53 percent

of people surveyed believed that AA programs should

be continued (CBS News 2003 ). In 2006, however,

only 36 percent of persons surveyed believed that AA

should be continued, a decrease of 17 percentage points

from 2003.

In contrast, respondents to Gallup’s annual survey of

minority rights and relations in 2005 were slightly

more supportive of AA programs for racial minorities

(50 percent) than opposed to such programs (42

percent). Moreover, between 2001 and 2005, the

percentage of people opposed to AA programs actually

decreased, albeit marginally, from 44 percent to 42

percent ( Jones 2005 ). Because the percentage of peo-

ple who wanted to see a decrease in AA programs fell

from 37 percent in 1995 to 26 percent in 2003, Jack

Ludwig, director of research for Gallup Poll Social

Audits, argued that the public was warming to AA

( Ludwig 2003 ).

What has been consistent over the years, however, is

an enduring racial gap in perceptions of AA, with

minorities supporting AA by a margin of at least

20 percentage points in fi ve annual CBS and Gallup

surveys (see fi gures 2 and 3 in the PAR Web version;

CBS News 2006; Jones 2005; Ludwig 2003 ). For

example, a 2003 Gallup Poll revealed that African

Americans and Hispanics were signifi cantly more

supportive of AA programs than non-Hispanic whites.

In that survey, 70 percent of African American and

63 percent of Hispanic respondents favored AA,

compared to 44 percent of white respondents. More

in-depth exploration of this perceptual gap has led

some to conclude that the diff erences between African

Americans’ and whites’ perceptions of AA programs

“likely stem from the belief among a majority of

whites (59 percent) that blacks in this country have

equal job opportunities with whites, while only

23 percent of blacks agree. Roughly three in four

blacks believe that they do not have equal job oppor-

tunities in this country” ( Jones 2005, 2 ). Moreover,

the percentage of African Americans who believed

that the government should make every eff ort to help

blacks and other minorities increased from 59 percent

to 67 percent between 1997 and 2003 (see fi gure 3 in

the PAR Web version). Th e trend for white respon-

dents in the CBS and Gallop polls diff ered slightly,

however, with the percentage supporting federal

government eff orts increasing from 34 percent

in 1997 to 41 percent in 2001 but decreasing to

36 percent in 2003.

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 913

Affi rmative Action on the Defensive: The View from the Courts, Legislatures, and Governors’ Offi ces Against this leitmotif of eroding support for AA

among large segments of the American public, and

perhaps helping to coalesce it, recent years have seen a

sustained attack on AA in Washington, in the states,

and in the courts. In the process, AA has seen limita-

tions placed on its scope, with narrow tailoring of its

application — part of the test that public managers

must anticipate as they work in this area. Collectively,

these developments do not bode well for the future of

AA as we know it.

Lesson 2: A narrowing of AA by the courts has been

under way since the late 1980s, though with some

protections added in higher education. At the federal

level, the seeds of President Ronald Reagan’s eff orts to

appoint federal judges “opposed to regulation in gen-

eral and AA in particular” ( Kelly and Dobbin 2001,

95 ) blossomed after Reagan left offi ce (Kellough 1989;

Naff 2004). Before then — although many of the

decisions were split — AA typically received (with few

exceptions) the support of the U.S. Supreme Court

(Kellough 1989 ; Naff 2004). For example, the Court

ruled that colleges and universities were permitted to

use race or ethnicity as a fl exible factor in its admis-

sions decisions. Likewise, public and private employ-

ers could voluntarily employ AA programs to address

racial, ethnic, or gender imbalances in their work-

forces. Moreover, the U.S. Congress could require AA

programs from employers receiving federal funding.

Since then, however, AA has largely been on the

defensive in the federal courts. Th e Supreme Court’s

fi rst major decision in this regard challenged the legal

standing of AA programs at the state and local levels

by requiring programs to pass a more demanding and

stringent level of scrutiny by the courts. More precisely,

in Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. (488 U.S. 469 [1989]),

the Court ruled that the city of Richmond’s 30 percent

set-aside program for minority-owned construction

fi rms was “an unyielding racial quota.” Th e Court

established that AA programs at the state and local

levels should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts.

In Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (497 U.S. 547

[1990]), Justice William J. Brennan, in his majority

decision, held that the minority preference policies

of the Federal Communications Commission did

not violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth

Amendment. Moreover, unlike the Croson decision,

which focused on a local government’s use of prefer-

ences, the Court even found that AA plans adopted

by Congress are not subject to strict scrutiny. But

the justices’ support for legislatively mandated AA

programs was temporary. In Adarand Constructors, Inc.

v. Peña (515 U.S. 200 [1995]), the Supreme Court

actually struck down its Metro Broadcasting decision

and ruled that the strict standards established in

Croson were the proper standard for examining federal

set-aside programs. Although the Court found that

federal AA programs need to serve “a compelling

governmental interest,” the majority decision affi rmed

that the use of AA may be justifi ed in particular

instances, such as when systematic discrimination

exists. Importantly, the aforementioned rulings do

not preclude local, state, or federal governments from

using AA programs. However, the decisions do “raise

the standards for their legal justifi cation” ( Holzer and

Neumark 2000a, 491 ).

In the aftermath of these decisions, the Clinton

administration responded quickly, recognizing that

“federal HRM affi rmative action for minorities had

become constitutionally questionable” ( Naylor and

Rosenbloom 2004, 151 ). Indeed, although the Ada-

rand decision pertained only to government contract-

ing, the administration instructed all federal agencies

and departments to apply the decision to both con-

tracting and employment (Naff 2004; Naylor and

Rosenbloom 2004 ). Moreover, and at about the same

time, two important circuit court decisions called AA

into question.

In Podberesky v. Kirwan (38 F.3d 147 [1994]), the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled

that the University of Maryland’s Banneker scholar-

ship program, which was limited to African Americans,

was unconstitutional. Two years later, the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals’ decision in Hopwood v. University of

Texas (78 F.3d 932 [1996]) prohibited consideration

of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, even for

the express purpose of creating a diverse student body.

According to the court, diversity in higher education

did not represent a compelling state interest (AAUP

2006). Th e Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that

although addressing past discrimination was a com-

pelling state interest, discrimination in the system in

general was not. Th e Supreme Court let the Hopwood

decision stand without review. More recently,

however, the Supreme Court ruled more positively

on the application of AA to higher education in

Gratz v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 244 [2003]) and Grutter

v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 [2003]). It has done so,

however, in ways that are decidedly more constraining

than during the pre-Reagan era.

Lesson 3: Grassroots legislative actions, ballot initia-

tives, and executive orders threaten AA, but state

legislators and governors are not without the tools to

hold its demise at bay. Prompted especially by the

Fifth Circuit Court’s decision, grassroots anti-AA

movements began growing in some states and were

quickly joined by legislative and gubernatorial initia-

tives. Some residents and elected offi cials, for example,

have taken action at the state level to curb AA through

legislation, ballot initiatives, and executive orders

914 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

( Americans for a Fair Chance 2005 ). Two states,

California (Proposition 209) and Washington (I-200),

passed citizen initiatives in 1996 and 1998, respec-

tively, prohibiting state and local governments from

discriminating against or granting preferential treat-

ment to any individual or group based on race, sex,

color, ethnicity, or national origin. Again, however,

racial and ethnic disparities in voting patterns were

readily apparent. Overall, California voters approved

Proposition 209 by a 10-point margin (55 percent

supported the measure and 45 percent opposed it).

But polling results suggest that 61 percent of the

white voters supported Pro position 209, compared to

only 25 percent of African American and 28 percent

of Hispanic voters ( Hardy-Fanta 2000 ).

Th ough citizen initiatives have been successful in only

two states, ballot initiative campaigns led by Ward

Connerly, a former member of the California Board

of Regents and the leader of Proposition 209, may be

forthcoming in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and

New Hampshire ( Americans for a Fair Chance 2005 ).

Moreover, even when citizen initiatives have failed or

have not reached the ballot, some governors have

taken unilateral action to end, limit, or redefi ne AA.

In Florida, for example, Governor Jeb Bush ended AA

in the state’s employment, contracting, and education

systems by issuing Executive Order 99-201, titled the

“One Florida Initiative” ( U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights 2000 ). Still, since 2000, Florida is the only

state that has eliminated the use of AA through

executive order.

By the same token, however, legislative supporters of

AA can work with sympathetic governors to limit the

impact of anti-AA campaigns and court decisions. In

response to the dismantling of AA in higher education

admissions by the courts, for example, legislatures in

California, Florida, and Texas adopted a new tool of

public action, “percentage plans,” to address equal

educational opportunity (see table 3 in the Web

version of PAR ). Th ough these plans diff er somewhat,

they all grant top-graduating high school students

admission to the state university system.

Adopted in response to the Hopwood decision, for

example, Texas’s “Ten Percent Plan” allows students

who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class

admission to the University of Texas system. Similarly,

but more narrowly, California adopted a plan to

guarantee the top 4 percent of students graduating

from California’s public schools admission to the

University of California system (AAUP 2006). Mean-

while, Florida’s “Talented 20 Program” allows the top

20 percent of graduating seniors from Florida high

schools admission to one of the University of Florida’s

public institutions (AAUP 2006). Likewise, Governor

Ruth Ann Minner (D) issued an executive order in

2001 supporting the use of AA programs in Delaware,

and Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski (D) made his

support of AA clear in both his 2005 State of the State

address and by executive order.

Has Affi rmative Action Reached Its Goals? After more than 30 years of implementation, what has

AA actually accomplished? Although the majority

of the empirical research demonstrates the positive

impact of AA policies on educational and employ-

ment opportunities for minorities and women ( Chay

1998 ; GAO 1991; Goldstein and Smith 1976 ; Holzer

and Neumark 2000a , 2000b; Kellough 1990a, 1990b;

Leonard 1990; Naff 2001; Naylor and Rosenbloom

2004; Rodgers and Spriggs 1996 ), some studies have

raised questions about its true benefi ts ( Bowen and

Bok 1998; Datcher, Garman, and Garman 1993 ,

1995; Davidson and Lewis 1997; Kane 1998; Sander

2004; Vars and Bowen 1998 ). Overall, one fi nds

research support for progress on the critical pipeline

dimension of educational opportunity. However, there

is decidedly less signifi cant advancement when it

comes to other major goals such as hiring, equal pay,

and the elimination of discrimination once minorities

and women are hired. Th erefore, it seems that future

progress still requires the kind of “pressure of court

decisions, legislation, executive action, and the power

of examples in the public and private sector” that was

so essential to the progress made since the 1960s

( Clinton 1995 ).

Lesson 4: Substantial and important progress is being

made in the critical area of educational opportunities,

but the retention and academic performance measures

of some minority students are disappointing and sug-

gest that additional or diff erent eff orts are needed. Th e

impact of affi rmative action on educational opportu-

nity has been researched extensively, and the impact is

clear: More women and minorities are represented on

college campuses and in professional programs today

than prior to the use of AA (Stephanopoulos and

Edley 1995). Studies examining the link between AA

and student performance, however, are less compel-

ling for minorities; on average, minority students do

not perform as well as white students. On the other

hand, women perform better academically than men

(Berkner, Cuccaro-Alamin, and McCormick 1996;

Bierman 2006 ; Clune, Nuñez, and Choy 2001;

NCES 1999).

Between 1960 and 2003, men enrolling in college

after graduating from high school increased by 7.2

percentage points, from 54 percent to 61.2 percent.

During this same period, the percentage of women

going to college after high school grew more rapidly.

In 1960, about 38 percent of women graduating

from high school went to college, compared to 66.5

percent of women in 2003 (NCES 2004a). According

to U.S. Department of Education data (NCES

2004b), between 1974 and 2003, a larger percentage

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 915

of graduating high school students across racial and

ethnic groups went to college. Specifi cally, although

white enrollment rose from 47.8 percent to 66.2

percent of the available pool during that period,

African American enrollment rose from 32.5 percent

to 57.5 percent. Hispanic enrollment improved only

marginally, from 54.1 percent to 58.6 percent. Th us,

the news — though positive in terms of AA goals

on this dimension — is not all good. For example,

over a 30-year period, there was a slightly higher rate

of growth of African Americans going to college

(25.0 percent) than for white students (18.4 percent).

But the rate of growth for Hispanics going to college

during this same period was signifi cantly lower

(4.5 percent) than the growth rate for whites and

African Americans. Still, these data indicate that

minority students constitute a much higher percent-

age of college and university students today. In 2002,

29.4 percent of undergraduate students were

minorities, compared to 15.4 percent in 1976

(NCES 2004c).

Prior research also fi nds that women and minorities

have increased their representation in graduate and

professional schools during the last 25 years (NCES

2004c, 2004d). In 1969, women represented 38

percent of graduate school enrollments, compared to

58 percent of graduate students in 2003 (NCES

2004e). Between 1976 and 1977, whites received

91.7 percent of fi rst professional degrees awarded;

African Americans received 4 percent, Hispanics

1.7 percent, Asians 1.6 percent, and Native Americans

0.3 percent. By 2002 – 03, however, minorities were

receiving a larger share of fi rst professional degrees

conferred: African Americans received 7.1 percent,

Hispanics received 5.1 percent, Asians received

12.1 percent, and Native Americans received 0.7

percent (NCES 2004d). Th e progress of women in

professional programs has been even more impressive.

Whereas women received 19 percent of fi rst profes-

sional degrees issued in 1976 – 77, they received

48 percent of fi rst professional degrees awarded in

2002 – 03 (NCES 2004d). Likewise, in 1955 – 56,

women received only 1.1 percent, 5.1 percent, and

3.9 percent of dental, medical, and law degrees

conferred, respectively. In 2002 – 03, however, women

received 38.9 percent, 45.3 percent, and 49 percent

of dental, medical, and law degrees awarded, respec-

tively, in these fi elds.

Prior research also reveals, however, a controversy

over what these otherwise impressive gains mean in

terms of academic performance (e.g., Bowen and Bok

1998; Datcher, Garman, and Garman 1993 , 1995;

Davidson and Lewis 1997; Kane 1998; Sander 2004;

Vars and Bowen 1998 ). For example, a recent article

by Sander (2004) raises and validates a concern of

many AA critics — that is, AA results in minority

applicants who are less qualifi ed being accepted to

more elite universities. Assessing grade point averages

and graduation rates, Sander (2004) argues that many

African American students struggle in law school

academically and fail at higher rates than they would

have if preferences had not been awarded.

Without AA, Sander contends that African American

law students would likely perform better because they

would be admitted to less selective programs that

better fi t their entry credentials (e.g., grade point

averages and LSAT scores). In turn, better academic

performance would likely lead to better job place-

ment, as many law fi rms weight a law student’s class

ranking heavily in the interview process ( Sander

2004 ). Similarly, in a study of undergraduate perfor-

mance and earnings, Datcher, Garman, and Garman

(1995) found that, at the undergraduate level, African

Americans had lower grade point averages and gradua-

tion rates. However, they found that African Ameri-

cans were not necessarily worse off because they

attended more selective institutions. Still, they argue

that the gains from attending more selective colleges

were not as signifi cant as those observed for white

students (Datcher, Garman, and Garman 1995).

Lesson 5: Th e pipeline arguments of AA opponents are

not as compelling as they suggest and may not survive a

relaxation of pressure on employers to hire a diverse

workforce. Still, there is some promising news from the

private sector. A number of studies have examined the

eff ect of AA on the employment of minorities and

women across diff erent sectors ( Ashenfelter and

Heckman 1976; Chay 1998 ; GAO 1991; Goldstein

and Smith 1976 ; Holzer and Neumark 2000a , 2000b;

Kellough 1990a, 1990b; Leonard 1984, 1990; Naff

2001; Naylor and Rosenbloom 2004; Rodgers and

Spriggs 1996 ; Stephanopoulos and Edley 1995). Th e

studies are varied and transcend disciplines. A number

of studies use the Employer Information EEO-1 survey

data collected by the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) to examine the impact of AA (as

established by Executive Order 11246) on minority

and female employment shares among federal contrac-

tors and noncontractors in the private sector. For ex-

ample, Leonard (1990) fi nds that AA has been eff ective

because employment gains among women and minori-

ties for the period 1974 – 80 rose more signifi cantly for

federal contractors than for noncontractors. He also

found that the most important predictor of employ-

ment gains for minorities and women is enforcement

or compliance reviews. Overall, studies using EEO-1

data have shown that AA has signifi cantly and posi-

tively infl uenced the minority employment share in the

private sector, particularly in unskilled positions.

Minorities and women, however, are still substantially

underrepresented in chief executive offi cer (CEO)

posts compared to their participation in the civilian

labor force (see fi gure 4 in the Web version), with the

916 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

gap highest for women, African Americans, and His-

panics. According to Fortune magazine, in 1992, only

three of the Fortune 500 companies, or less than 1

percent, were led by African American CEOs ( Daniels

2002 ). What might account for this? Among a variety

of explanations, prior research suggests that a lack of

representation of minorities and women on boards of

directors does not help the situation. In a study of

Fortune 100 companies, researchers found that

women held 16.9 percent of board seats and minori-

ties held 14.9 percent ( Alliance for Board Diversity

2005 ). Hispanics were particularly underrepresented

on corporate boards, holding 3.9 percent of board

seats. Th erefore, one possibility for remedying the

situation is to move aggressively to diversify corporate

boards so that they might engage in the active repre-

sentation that is needed to foster diversity at all

levels of these organizations.

A number of studies have also examined the demo-

graphic composition of local, state, and federal work-

forces (e.g., Cayer and Sigelman 1980; Dometrius

1984 ; GAO 1991; Gibson and Yeager 1975;

Grabosky and Rosenbloom 1975; Hellriegel and

Short 1972 ; Kellough 1990a; Kim 1993; Lewis

1988; McCabe and Stream 2000; Nachmias and

Rosenbloom 1973 ; OPM 2006; Page 1994 ; Rose and

Chia 1978). Unlike studies of federal contractors and

noncontractors, however, studies of public organiza-

tions cannot isolate the eff ects of AA from broader

civil rights enforcement on the representation of mi-

norities and women. Still, one can discern important

trends that indirectly shed light on its eff ects — trends

that are not as persistently promising in showing the

kinds of impact that proponents of AA would hope.

Th ey tend to show that the importance of strong

political pressures from Washington may be a

necessary but hardly suffi cient condition for sustained

progress on diversity.

Although earlier studies suggest that African

American representation improved signifi cantly in

the 1960s and 1970s ( Grabosky and Rosenbloom

1975; Hellriegel and Short 1972 ), other studies

indicate that progress slowed at all governmental

levels in the 1980s during the Reagan administration

( Page 1994 ). Women and some minorities are better

represented today in terms of their overall presence

in public organizations, but many studies have found

that they are overrepresented in the lower echelons

of bureaucracies and underrepresented in the

managerial and executive ranks (Baldwin 1996;

Dometrius 1984 ; GAO 1991; Greene, Selden, and

Brewer 2001; Kim 1993; OPM 2006). In 2006,

however, the U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management

reported that minorities are now better represented

in the federal than in the civilian labor force. Th e

only exception was the representation of Hispanics.

Th is fi nding is similar to research on state governments,

where studies have found that Hispanics are grossly

underrepresented in state bureaucracies (Greene,

Selden, and Brewer 2001). Moreover, the disparity

between the presence of minorities and women in

management and nonmanagement positions in the

federal government still remains (see table 4 in the

Web version), with the degree of representation

decreasing dramatically with increases in grade

or rank.

Holzer and Neumark (2000b) employ a diff erent

methodology in their examination of the impact of

AA in the private sector. Instead of relying on EEO-1

data or public sector workforce statistics, they

surveyed an array of fi rms regarding their use of

diff erent AA practices, focusing on the pipeline ac-

tivities of recruiting and hiring. Th eir study of 3,200

employers in four metropolitan areas found that 56

percent of employers used AA in recruiting, com-

pared to 42 percent in hiring. Moreover, they found

that employers using AA “recruit[ed] applicants

much more extensively and screen[ed] them more

intensively; rel[ied] more heavily on formal rather

than informal means of evaluation (both before and

after a worker is hired) and [were] more likely to

provide training to candidates they do hire” (Holzer

and Neumark 2000b, 269). Firms using AA also

received more applications from women and

minorities and hired more women and minorities

than fi rms that did not use AA as part of their

recruitment process. As opponents of AA often

tout, their research also shows that qualifi cations

traditionally considered in the hiring process, such as

education, were lower for minorities hired than for

whites hired. Yet supportive of the arguments of

proponents, Holzer and Neumark found that the

performance of women and minorities in fi rms using

AA was as high as that of similar workers in fi rms

that did not use AA.

Th ere is some additional and promising news for

AA proponents emanating from the private sector,

especially when it comes to the largest corporations

in America. Because of the changing demographics

of the labor pool and the globalization of business,

Fortune 500 companies and other large employers in

the United States understand the business necessity of

diversity, and they are developing programs accord-

ingly ( Day 2001 ; Wright et al. 1995). Th us, despite

ongoing debates about the fairness, impact, and legal-

ity of AA, many employers are shifting their focus to

workforce diversity. Some organizations, such as

Genworth Financial and IBM (as well as the state of

New Jersey in the public sector), have committed

extensive resources to creating cultures that value and

encourage diversity. Using diversity management,

these companies have introduced new practices such

as cultural audits to identify internal barriers that

inhibit diversity.

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 917

Lesson 6: Th e durability of intentional and uninten-

tional pay discrimination remains high despite prog-

ress in this area. A number of studies have examined

the wages, earnings, and salaries of women and mi-

norities (e.g., Aher and Popkin 1984; Barbezat 1989;

Blau 1998; Blau and Kahn 1997 ; GAO 2003; Holzer

and Neumark 2000a ; Katz, Stern, and Fader 2005;

Lewis 1998; Stanley and Jarrell 1998 ; Stephanopoulos

and Edley 1995; Willoughby 1991 ). Th e consensus

across these studies is that although wages have im-

proved, the wage gap between white males and both

minorities and women persists, although it is lower

in the public sector than in the private sector ( Blau

1998; Blau and Kahn 1997 ; Holzer and Neumark

2000b; Lewis 1996; Smith 1976; Sorensen 1989;

Stanley and Jarrell 1998 ; Stephanopoulos and Edley

1995). For example, in 2004, women working full

time earned 76.5 percent (median salary $31,223)

of the annual wages earned by men (median

salary $40,798) ( Institute for Women’s Policy

Research 2006 ).

Moreover, Waldfogel (1998) found that the most

signifi cant wage gap exists between men and women

with children. It must be said that although wage gaps

are often interpreted as a form of discrimination,

some labor economists suggest that the omission of

such factors as unobserved skills may account for

some of the disparities (e.g., Becker 1985 ; GAO

2003). And though Lewis (1985) found that a signifi -

cant portion of the wage gap between women and

men in the federal service could be explained by

occupational segregation, the U.S. General Accounting

Offi ce (2003; since 2004, the Government Account-

ability Offi ce) found that it was unable to explain all

of the earnings diff erences between men and women,

even when controlling for work patterns. Might per-

formance explain these diff erentials? Not if a wage

study of manufacturing employees by Hellerstein,

Neumark, and Troske (1999) is considered. Th ey found

that female employees earned lower wages compared to

their male counterparts but exhibited comparable levels

of productivity. Still other research concludes that

“employer discrimination continues to play a role in

generating diff erent labor market outcomes by race and

sex” ( Holzer and Neumark 2000a, 499 ).

Lesson 7: Th e idea that public and business organiza-

tions will be more aggressive in pursuing diversity

because of profi ts in global markets or for foreign

policy reasons alone is belied by the extent to which

employment discrimination still persists. Although

some encouraging news about public and private

sector eff orts has been reported, so have other disturb-

ing trends. Consequently, no one should be sanguine

about the prospects for continued progress in either

the private or public sectors absent continued external

pressures. In addition to the research that has already

been mentioned, a variety of other studies have

documented evidence that women and minorities are

subject to labor market discrimination (e.g., see Dar-

ity and Mason 1998; Heckman 1998 ; Kolpin and

Singell 1996; Naff 2001 ; Stephanopoulos and Edley

1995). Moreover, though the EEOC investigates

charges of employment discrimination in public and

private organizations and litigates cases that are not

resolved or deferred to states according to state stat-

utes, their reports and research informed by them may

only be the tip of the iceberg.

Th e EEOC, after all, is often and rightly criticized as

being slow in its processing of equal employment

opportunity complaints ( Dodge 1997 ; GAO 2005),

mostly because its enforcement tasks have expanded

without anywhere near a commensurate increase in

investigative staff ( Dodge 1997 ). Granted, between

fi scal years 2001 and 2005, the total number of dis-

crimination charges fi led with the EEOC decreased

from 80,840 to 75,428, or 6.7 percent (EEOC 2006).

However, though the reported incidence of discrimi-

nation may have slowed in the last three years, staffi ng

levels at the EEOC during this four-year period fell by

19 percent, more than triple the reduction observed in

complaints fi led with the EEOC. Even if the number

of complaints is declining, the EEOC still received

19,024 complaints against the federal government

alleging employment discrimination (EEOC 2004).

In the process, the number of national origin – based

and sex-based discrimination charges increased

between fi scal years 1992 and 2005, whereas the

number of race-based discrimination charges dropped

(see table 5 in the Web version).

A recent Gallup Poll also suggests that actual EEOC

discrimination fi lings may underestimate the magni-

tude of the problem (EEOC 2005). In 2005, nearly

15 percent of U.S. workers surveyed perceived that

they had faced some type of employment discrimina-

tion or had been treated unfairly. Interestingly, the

perceptions of discriminatory treatment at work

varied by group, but this time, Asian and African

Americans reported higher levels of perceived

discrimination. Th irty-one percent of Asians surveyed

reported incidents of discrimination, compared to 26

percent of African Americans, 18 percent of Hispan-

ics, 22 percent of white women, and 3 percent of

white men (EEOC 2005).

Lesson 8: Mixed evidence, especially regarding women,

suggests that active representation is a by-product of

diversity in public agencies. Why does all this matter?

As noted earlier, passive representation in public,

private, and nonprofi t organizations is important as a

ladder of opportunity and a symbol of career mobility.

However, recent research aff ords growing evidence

that active representation is an important — albeit

controversial — by-product of diversity ( Lim 2006 ).

Although the evidence is mixed, particularly for

918 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

women, on the whole, studies show that passive repre-

sentation in public organizations such as the EEOC,

the Farmers Home Administration, and schools leads

to active representation or policy outcomes that ben-

efi t represented groups (e.g., Hindera 1993a , 1993b;

Hindera and Young 1998; Meier 1993 ; Meier and

Stewart 1992; Selden 1997 ).

Some studies have shown that this type of representa-

tion is more likely to occur in the lower echelons of

organizations, where the representation of those

groups is higher ( Meier 1993; Selden 1997 ). Research

has also shown that representation of minorities

makes a real diff erence in how services are delivered

and how program resources are allocated, but its ulti-

mate impact on organizational performance is not as

well documented (e.g., Andrews et al. 2005; Coleman

1999; Hindera 1993a , 1993b; Hindera and Young

1998; Meier 1993; Meier and Nicholson-Crotty

2006 ; Meier and Stewart 1992; Selden 1997 ). For

example, Meier and Stewart (1992) found that

schools with more African American teachers disci-

plined African Americans less often, placed fewer

African American students in educable mentally re-

tarded classes, and identifi ed more African American

students as gifted.

Although several studies found no link between active

and passive representation for women (Meier,

Pennington, and Eller 2005; Selden 1997 ), Meier and

Nicholson-Crotty (2006) found evidence that police

departments with more women police offi cers were

more eff ective at getting women to report sexual

assaults and gaining convictions for those crimes.

Prior research also suggests that an eff ective means of

ensuring that the interests of minorities and women

are represented in administrative decision-making

processes is to employ minorities and women. Still, a

recent study by Meier, Pennington, and Eller (2005)

is less positive; they found that active representation

of African Americans within the EEOC itself is

declining, with no evidence of a link between passive

and active representation for women in that agency.

Why the variation in linkages? Prior research sug-

gests that the representation link is more likely under

certain conditions and is enabled by particular

factors. Th ese include but are not limited to institu-

tional constraints, organizational socialization,

perceived administrative roles, policy context, and

strategy (Andrews et al. 2005; Brudney, Hebert, and

Wright 2000; Dolan 2002 ; Keiser, Wilkins, and

Meier 2002; Kelly and Newman 2001; Saidel and

Loscocco 2005; Selden 1997 ; Sowa and Selden

2003; Wilkins and Keiser 2006 ). Much remains

to be done, however, before a clear understanding

emerges of the link between passive and active repre-

sentation in all types of organizations across sectors

in the new governance era.

Conclusions Th is review of prior public opinion, educational,

employment, and discrimination research suggests

that public, private, and nonprofi t managers should

expect that, despite the gains achieved by women and

minorities since the early 1960s, the challenges of

eradicating discrimination in the workplace remain.

On the positive side, they should know that the edu-

cational pipeline for increasing diversity in their work-

forces is more robust than in the past, but the

performance and graduation rates of minority stu-

dents remain disappointing and require attention.

Likewise, although signifi cant progress has been made

in employment opportunities, women, Hispanics, and

African Americans lag white men in their ability to

reach the highest ranks of public and private organiza-

tions, receive comparable wages, and work in a dis-

crimination-free workplace. Th us, to the extent that

other research and many practitioners suggest that a

multiracial, multiethnic, gendered, and talented work-

force is needed for public, private, and nonprofi t

organizations to carry out the work of new governance

models eff ectively in the 21st century, work still

remains to be done.

Practitioners from all segments of the emerging multi-

sectored workforce, however, also need to know that

what this “work” will look like is unclear. More pre-

cisely, changes in existing AA programs to address the

remaining vestiges of institutional disparities are likely

inevitable but are still in need of precise formulation

and testing for their eff ectiveness. Recent federal court

decisions, the growth of a vibrant and enduring anti-

AA movement, and the divided opinion of the Ameri-

can public signal that the long-term viability of AA

policies as they are currently confi gured is limited.

Granted, state legislatures, governors, and the courts

may try to stem the tide, and some have succeeded in

doing so. Yet the sometimes tortured ways in which

this has to be done — and the uncertainties that action

will be taken or that it will be suffi cient to joust eff ec-

tively with AA opponents — make such eff orts and

their success uncertain at best. Th us, experiments such

as those with percentage plans and the push for diver-

sity management are likely forerunners of eff orts to

promote racial, ethnic, and gender diversity more

indirectly in the future without losing the aspirational

goal of equity for all our citizens.

For researchers, the implications of this review of prior

research are multiple. A more extended and elaborated

agenda for research is provided in the longer version

of this article on the PAR Web site, but here, three

areas seem especially worthwhile to pursue. First,

present eff orts to assess the factors that aff ect residual

disparities on the hiring, promotion, and workplace

discrimination fronts must continue. Th ese gaps are

real and disturbing, and they must not be neglected

if a truly color-blind, gender-blind, and integrated

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 919

society is to become a reality in the multisectored

public service. Moreover, given the extent to which

AA is on the defense, and alternatives to it must be

found, additional research is needed to inform these

debates. What are the conditions under which existing

tools for advancing diversity in the public, private,

and nonprofi t sectors are more or less likely to pro-

duce results? Given the continuing role of the courts

in these decisions, this kind of research can not only

advance scholarly understanding of AA impacts but

also play a key role in how future AA disputes are

debated and resolved.

Second, and given the shift from a government-

centered to a multisectored model of governance in

the United States, greater attention must be paid to

what is happening in the private and nonprofi t sectors

when it comes to diversity eff orts, approaches, and

results. Both sectors are viewed as critical partners of

government agencies, and the latter has historically

been a key avenue of social mobility for the disadvan-

taged. Future studies should explore whether the tools

of diversity management (e.g., cultural audits) are

more than old wine in new bottles and what their

impact has been on hiring, performance, and promo-

tions. Moreover, the conditions under which these

tools are more or less able to produce the desired

results also should be a focus of study.

Finally, there is a critical need to explore the link

between levels of diversity and substantive policy

outputs. Given the important role that private and

nonprofi t organizations play as partners in delivering

goods, services, and opportunities to citizens in need,

exploring these links seems especially important in

these understudied sectors. If early indications from

the research on the link between passive and active

representation are correct, this question should be

explored further — not only in the public sector but

also in the private and nonprofi t sectors. Moreover,

this exploration should focus on both empirical and

normative concerns. Given the social, economic, and

political stakes involved, as well as our nascent and

presently mixed understanding of this issue, any

aspect of this agenda would be timely, informative,

and important.

References Aher , Martin , and Joel Popkin . 1984 . Th e Eff ect of

Gender and Race Diff erences on Public – Private

Wage Comparisons: A Study of Postal Workers .

Industrial and Labor Relations Review 38 ( 1 ): 16 – 25 .

Alliance for Board Diversity . 2005 . New Report

Shows Severe Under-Representation of Women

and Minorities on Corporate Boards. News release ,

May 11 . www.catalystwomen.org/fi les/pr/ABD_pr.

pdf [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

American Association for University Professors

(AAUP) . 2006 . Update on Affi rmative Action in

Higher Education: A Current Legal Overview .

www.aaup.org/issues/affi rmativeaction/aalegal.htm

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Americans for a Fair Chance . 2005 . Anti-Affi rmative

Action Th reats in the States: 1997 – 2004 .

Washington, DC : Leadership Conference on

Civil Rights Education Fund . http://fairchance.

civilrights.org/the_facts/reports/aa_state_2005.pdf

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Andrews , Rhys , George A . Boyne , Kenneth J . Meier ,

Laurence J . O’Toole , Jr. , and Richard M . Walker .

2005 . Representative Bureaucracy, Organizational

Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An

Empirical Analysis of English Local Government .

Journal of Public Administration Research and

Th eory 15 ( 4 ): 489 – 503 .

Ashenfelter , Orley , and James Heckman . 1976 .

Measuring the Eff ect of an Antidiscrimination

Program . In Evaluating the Labor Market Eff ects of

Social Programs , edited by Orley Ashenfelter and

James Blum , 46 – 84 . Princeton, NJ : Princeton

University Press .

Baldwin , J . Norman . 1996 . Female Promotions in

Male-Dominant Organizations: Th e Case of the

United States Military . Journal of Politics 58 ( 4 ):

1184 – 97 .

Barbezat , Debra A . 1989 . Affi rmative Action in

Higher Education: Have Two Decades Altered

Salary Diff erentials by Sex and Race? Research

Labor Economics 10 : 107 – 56 .

Becker , Gary S . 1985 . Human Capital, Eff ort, and

the Sexual Division of Labor . Journal of Labor

Economics 3 ( 1 ): S33 – 58 .

Berkner , Lutz , Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, and

Alexander C . McCormick . 1996 . Descriptive

Summary of 1989 – 90 Beginning Postsecondary

Students: Five Years Later, with an Essay on

Postsecondary Persistence and Attainment .

Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics . NCES

96 – 155 .

Bierman , Noah . 2006 . Women Are Besting Men in

College, but Not Salary. Miami Herald , April 28 .

www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/

local/14448191.htm [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Blau , Francine . 1998 . Trends in the Well-Being of

American Women, 1970 – 1995 . Journal of

Economic Literature 36 ( 1 ): 112 – 65 .

Blau, Francine , and Lawrence M . Kahn . 1997 .

Swimming Upstream: Trends in the Gender Wage

Diff erential in the 1980s . Journal of Labor

Economics 15 ( 1 ): 1 – 42 .

Bowen , William G . , and Derek Bok . 1998 . Th e

Shape of the River . Princeton, NJ : Princeton

University Press .

Brudney , Jeff rey L. , F . Ted Hebert , and Deil S .

Wright . 2000 . From Organizational Values to

Organizational Roles: Examining Representative

Bureaucracy in State Administration . Journal of

920 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

Public Administration Research and Th eory 10 ( 3 ):

491 – 512 .

Cayer , N . Joseph , and Lee Sigelman . 1980 . Minorities

and Women in State and Local Government:

1973 – 1975 . Public Administration Review 40 ( 5 ):

443 – 50 .

CBS News . 2003 . U.S. Favors Affi rmative Action.

Opinion poll , January 23 . www.cbsnews.com/

stories/2003/04/01/opinion/polls/main547089.

shtml [ accessed February 20 , 2006 ].

CBS News . 2006 . Race and Ethnicity [polling data] .

Pollingreport.com, January 5 – 8 . www.

pollingreport.com/race.htm [ accessed August 2 ,

2006 ].

Chay , Kenneth . 1998 . Th e Impact of Federal Civil

Rights Policy on Black Economic Progress:

Evidence from the Equal Opportunity Act of

1972 . Industrial Labor Relations Review 51 ( 4 ):

608 – 32 .

Clinton , William Jeff erson . 1995 . Remarks by

William Jeff erson Clinton on Affi rmative

Action. National Archives Rotunda , July 19 .

http://clinton4.nara.gov/Initiatives/OneAmerica/

19970610-1444.vcs [ accessed August 2 ,

2006 ].

Clune , Michael S . , Anne-Marie Nuñez, and Susan P.

Choy . 2001 . Competing Choices: Men’s and

Women’s Paths after Earning a Bachelor’s Degree .

Education Statistics Quarterly 3 (3) . http://nces.

ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_3/3_3/q4 – 5.asp

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Coleman , Major G . 1999 . Merit, Cost, and the

Affi rmative Action Policy Debate . Review of Black

Political Economy 27 ( 1 ): 99 – 127 .

Daniels , Cora . 2002 . Th e Most Powerful Black

Executives in America Meet 50 Black Business

Men and Women Who Wield Unprecedented

Clout. Fortune , July 22 . http://money.cnn.com/

magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/07/22/

326294/index.htm [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Darity , William A . , and Patrick L . Mason . 1998 .

Evidence on Discrimination in Employment:

Codes of Color, Codes of Gender . Journal of

Economic Perspective 12 ( 2 ): 63 – 90 .

Datcher, Loury , Linda Garman , and David Garman .

1993 . Affi rmative Action in Higher Education .

American Economic Review 83 ( 2 ): 99 – 103 .

— — — . 1995 . College Selectivity and Earnings .

Journal of Labor Economics 13 ( 2 ): 289 – 308 .

Davidson, Robert , and Ernest Lewis . 1997 .

Affi rmative Action and Other Special

Consideration Admissions at the University

of California, Davis School of Medicine .

Journal of the American Medical Association

278 ( 14 ): 1153 – 58 .

Day , Jennifer Cheeseman . 2001 . National Population

Projections . Washington, DC : U.S. Census Bureau .

www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profi le/

natproj.html [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Dodge , Lola R . 1997 . Intergovernmental Relations

and the Administrative Enforcement of Equal

Employment Opportunity Laws . Public

Administration Review 57 ( 5 ): 431 – 40 .

Dolan , Julie . 2002 . Representative Bureaucracy in the

Federal Executive: Gender and Spending Priorities .

Journal of Public Administration Research and

Th eory 12 ( 3 ): 353 – 75 .

Dometrius , Nelson C . 1984 . Minorities and Women

among State Agency Leaders . Social Science

Quarterly 65 ( 3 ): 127 – 37 .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) . 2004 . Annual Report on the Federal

Work Force: Fiscal Year 2004 . www.eeoc.gov/

federal/fsp2004/index.html [ accessed August 2 ,

2006 ].

— — — . 2005 . New Gallup Poll on Employment

Discrimination Shows Progress, Problems 40 Years

after Founding of EEOC. News release , December

8 . www.eeoc.gov/press/12-8-05.html [ accessed

August 2 , 2006 ].

— — — . 2006 . Charge Statistics: FY 1992 Th rough

FY 2005 . www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Gallup Poll . 2003 . Race and Ethnicity [polling data].

Pollingreport.com , June 12 – 18 . www.

pollingreport.com/race.htm [ accessed August 2 ,

2006 ].

Gibson , Frank K . , and Samuel Yeager . 1975 . Trends in

the Federal Employment of Blacks . Public Personnel

Management 4 ( 3 ): 189 – 95 .

Goldstein, Morris , and Robert Smith . 1976 . Th e

Estimated Impact of the Antidiscrimination

Program Aimed at Federal Contractors . Industrial

Labor Relations Review 29 ( 3 ): 524 – 43 .

Grabosky , Peter N. , and David H . Rosenbloom .

1975 . Racial and Ethnic Integration in

Federal Service . Social Science Quarterly

56 ( 2 ): 71 – 84 .

Greene, Vernon , Sally Coleman Selden , and Gene

Brewer . 2001 . Measuring Power and Presence:

Bureaucratic Representation in the American

States . Journal of Public Administration Research

and Th eory 11 ( 3 ): 379 – 402 .

Hardy-Fanta , Carol . 2000 . A Latino Gender Gap?

Evidence from the 1996 Election . Milenio Series 2 .

Austin, TX : Inter-University Program for Latino

Research .

Heckman , James J . 1998 . Detecting Discrimination .

Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 ( 2 ): 101 – 16 .

Hellerstein , Judith , David Neumark , and Kenneth R .

Troske . 1999 . Wages, Productivity, and Worker

Characteristics: Evidence from Plan-Level

Production Functions and Wage Equations .

Journal of Labor Economics 17 ( 3 ): 409 – 46 .

Hellriegel , Don , and Larry Short . 1972 . Equal

Employment Opportunity in the Federal

Government: A Comparative Analysis . Public

Administrative Review 32 ( 6 ): 851 – 67 .

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 921

Hindera , John J . 1993a . Representative Bureaucracy:

Imprimis Evidence of Active Representation in the

EEOC District Offi ces . Social Science Quarterly 74 :

95 – 108 .

— — — . 1993b . Representative Bureaucracy: Further

Evidence of Active Representation in the EEOC

District Offi ces . Journal of Public Administration

Research and Th eory 3 ( 4 ): 415 – 29 .

Hindera , John J . , and Cheryl D . Young . 1998 .

Representative Bureaucracy: Th e Th eoretical

Implications of Statistical Interaction . Political

Research Quarterly 51 ( 3 ): 655 – 71 .

Holzer , Harry , and David Neumark . 2000a . Assessing

Affi rmative Action? Journal of Economic Literature

38 ( 3 ): 483 – 568 .

— — — . 2000b . What Does Affi rmative Action Do?

Industrial and Labor Relations Review 53 ( 2 ): 240 – 72 .

Institute for Women’s Policy Research . 2006 . Th e

Gender Wage Ratio: Women’s and Men’s Earnings .

Washington, DC : Institute for Women’s Policy

Research .

Jones , Jeff rey . 2005 . Race, Ideology, and Support for

Affi rmative Action. Gallup Poll , August 23 . http://

poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=18091

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Kane , Th omas . 1998 . Racial Preferences and Higher

Education . In Th e Black – White Test Score Gap ,

edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith

Phillips , 431 – 56 . Washington, DC : Brookings

Institution Press .

Katz , Michael B . , Mark J . Stern , and Jamie J . Fader .

2005 . Women and the Paradox of Economic

Inequality in the Twentieth-Century . Journal of

Social History 39 ( 1 ): 65 – 88 .

Keiser , Lael R . , Vicky M . Wilkins , and Kenneth J .

Meier . 2002 . Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender,

Institutional Context, and Representative

Bureaucracy . American Political Science Review

96 ( 3 ): 553 – 64 .

Kellough , J . Edward . 1989 . Federal Equal Employment

Opportunity Policy and Numerical Goals and

Timetables: An Impact Assessment . Westport, CT :

Greenwood Press .

— — — . 1990a . Federal Agencies and Affi rmative

Action for Blacks and Women . Social Science

Quarterly 71 : 83 – 92 .

— — — . 1990b . Integration in the Public Workplace:

Determinants of Minority and Female Employment

in Federal Agencies . Public Administration Review

50 ( 5 ): 557 – 66 .

Kelly , Erin , and Frank Dobbin . 2001 . How Affi rmative

Action Became Diversity Management . In Color

Lines: Affi rmative Action, Immigration, and Civil Rights

Options for America , edited by John David Skrentny ,

87 – 117 . Chicago : University of Chicago Press .

Kelly , Rita Mae , and Meredith Newman . 2001 . Th e

Gendered Bureaucracy: Agency Mission, Equality

of Opportunity and Representative Bureaucracies .

Women and Politics 22 ( 3 ): 1 – 33 .

Kim , Pan Suk . 1993 . Racial Integration in the

American Federal Government: With Special

Reference to Asian-Americans . Review of Public

Personnel Administration 13 ( 1 ): 52 – 66 .

Kolpin, Van , and Larry Singell . 1990 . Th e Impact

of Affi rmative Action Regulation and Equal

Employment Opportunity Law on Black

Employment . Journal of Economic Perspectives

4 ( 4 ): 47 – 63 .

— — — . 1996 . Th e Gender Composition and

Scholarly Performance of Economics Departments:

A Test for Employment Discrimination . Industrial

Labor Relations Review 49 ( 3 ): 408 – 23 .

Leonard , Jonathan S . 1984 . Employment and

Occupational Advance under Affi rmative

Action . Review of Economics and Statistics 66 ( 3 ):

377 – 85 .

— — — . 1990 . Th e Impact of Affi rmative Action

Regulation and Equal Employment Opportunity

Law on Black Employment . Journal of Economic

Perspectives 4 ( 4 ): 47 – 63 .

Lewis , Gregory P . 1985 . Sexual Segregation of

Occupations and Earnings Diff erentials in Federal

Employment . Public Administration Quarterly 9 ( 3 ):

274 – 90 .

— — — . 1988 . Progress toward Racial and Sexual

Equality in the Federal Civil Service? Public

Administration Review 50 ( 3 ): 700 – 06 .

— — — . 1996 . Gender Integration of Occupations in

the Federal Civil Service: Extent and Eff ects on

Male-Female Earnings . Industrial and Labor

Relations Review 49 ( 3 ): 472 – 83 .

— — — . 1998 . Continuing Progress toward Racial

and Gender Pay Equality in the Federal Service: An

Update . Review of Public Personnel Administration

18 ( 2 ): 23 – 40 .

Lim , Hong-Hai . 2006 . Representative Bureaucracy:

Rethinking Substantive Eff ects and Active

Representation . Public Administration Review

66 ( 2 ): 193 – 204 .

Ludwig , Jack . 2003 . Public Warming to Affi rmative

Action as Supreme Court Hears Michigan Case.

Gallup Poll , April 1 . http://poll.gallup.com/

content/default.aspx?ci=8092 [ accessed

August 2 , 2006 ].

McCabe , Barbara Coyle , and Christopher Stream .

2000 . Diversity by the Numbers: Changes in State

and Local Government Workforces 1980 – 1995 .

Public Personnel Management 29 ( 1 ): 93 – 106 .

Meier , Kenneth J . 1993 . Latinos and Representative

Bureaucracy: Testing the Th ompson and

Henderson Hypotheses . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 3 ( 4 ): 393 – 414 .

Meier , Kenneth J . , and Jill Nicholson-Crotty . 2006 .

Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law

Enforcement: Th e Case of Sexual Assault . Public

Administration Review 66(6): 848–858.

Meier , Kenneth J . , and Joseph Stewart , Jr . 1992 . Th e

Impact of Representative Bureaucracies:

922 Public Administration Review • November | December 2006

Educational Systems and Public Policies . American

Review of Public Administration 22 : 157 – 71 .

Meier , Kenneth J . , Michael S . Pennington , and

Warren S . Eller . 2005 . Race, Sex, and Clarence

Th omas: Representation Change in the EEOC .

Public Administration Review 65 ( 2 ): 171 – 79 .

Nachmias, David , and David H . Rosenbloom . 1973 .

Measuring Bureaucratic Representation and

Integration . Public Administration Review 33 ( 6 ):

590 – 97 .

Naff , Katherine . 2001 . To Look Like America:

Dismantling Barriers for Women and Minorities

in the Federal Civil Service . Boulder, CO :

Westview Press .

— — — . 2004 . From Bakke to Grutter and Gratz : Th e

Supreme Court as a Policy Making Institution .

Review of Policy Research 21 ( 3 ): 405 – 26 .

Naylor , Lorenda A . , and David H . Rosenbloom .

2004 . Adarand, Grutter , and Gratz : Does

Affi rmative Action in Federal Employment Matter?

Review of Public Personnel Administration 24 ( 2 ):

150 – 74 .

Page , Paul . 1994 . African-Americans in Executive

Branch Agencies . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 14 ( 1 ): 25 – 50 .

Rodgers , William , and William Spriggs . 1996 . Th e

Eff ect of Federal Contractor Status on Racial

Diff erences in Establishment-Level Employment

Shares, 1979 – 1992 . American Economic Review

86 ( 2 ): 290 – 93 .

Rose , Winfi eld H . , and Tiang Ping Chia . 1978 . Th e

Impact of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act

of 1972 on Black Employment in the Federal

Service: A Preliminary Analysis . Public

Administration Review 38 ( 3 ): 245 – 51 .

Sabbagh , Daniel . 2003 . Judicial Uses of Subterfuge:

Affi rmative Action Reconsidered . Political Science

Quarterly 118 ( 3 ): 411 – 38 .

Saidel , Judith R . , and Karyn Loscocco . 2005 . Agency

Leaders, Gendered Institutions, and Representative

Bureaucracy . Public Administration Review 65 ( 2 ):

158 – 70 .

Sander , Richard S . 2004 . A Systematic Analysis of

Affi rmative Action in American Law Schools .

Stanford Law Review 57 : 367 – 483 .

Selden , Sally . 1997 . Th e Promise of Representative

Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a

Government Agency . Armonk, NY : M. E. Sharpe .

Smith , Sharon P . 1976 . Government Wage

Diff erentials by Sex . Journal of Human Resources

11 ( 2 ): 185 – 99 .

Sorensen , Elaine . 1989 . Measuring the Eff ect of

Occupational Sex and Race Composition on

Earnings . In Pay Equity: Empirical Inquiries , edited

by Robert T . Michaels , Heidi I . Hartmann , and

Brigid O’Farrell , 49 – 69 . Washington, DC :

National Academy Press .

Sowa , Jessica E . , and Sally Coleman Selden . 2003 .

Administrative Discretion and Active

Representation: An Expansion of the Th eory of

Representative Bureaucracy . Public Administration

Review 63 ( 6 ): 700 – 10 .

Stanley , T . D . , and Stephen B . Jarrell . 1998 . Gender

Wage Discrimination Bias? Journal of Human

Resources 33 ( 4 ): 947 – 73 .

Stephanopoulos , George , and Christopher Edley , Jr .

1995 . Review of Federal Affi rmative Action

Programs. Unpublished White House document .

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights . 2000 . Toward an

Understanding of Percentage Plans in Higher

Education: Are Th ey Eff ective Substitutes for

Affi rmative Action? Washington, DC: U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights . www.usccr.gov/pubs/

percent/stmnt.htm [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) . 1999 . 93 Bachelor’s

Degree Recipients in 1997 . Washington, DC : U.S.

Government Printing Offi ce . NCES 1999 – 1555 .

— — — . 2004a . Higher Education General

Information Survey, Table 183: College

Enrollment and Enrollment Rates of Recent High

School Completers, by Sex : 1960 to 2003.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/

dt04_183.asp [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

— — — . 2004b . Higher Education General

Information Survey, Table 182: College

Enrollment and Enrollment Rates of Recent High

School Completers, by Race/Ethnicity : 1960 to

2003. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/

tables/dt04_182.asp [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

— — — . 2004c . Higher Education General

Information Survey, Table 206: Total Fall

Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions, by

Race/Ethnicity , Sex , Attendance Status, and Level

of Student : Selected Years , 1976 to 2002.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/

dt04_206.asp [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

— — — . 2004d . Higher Education General

Information Survey, Table 271 : First-Professional

Degrees Conferred by Degree-Granting

Institutions, by Racial/Ethnic Group and Sex of

Student. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/

tables/dt04_271.asp [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

— — — . 2004e . Higher Education General

Information Survey, Table 187: Total Graduate

Fall Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions,

by Attendance Status , Sex of Student, and

Control of Institution : 1969 to 2002. http://nces.

ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_187.asp

[ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

U.S. General Accounting Offi ce (GAO) . 1991 .

Federal Workforce: Continuing Need for Federal

Affi rmative Employment . Washington, DC : U.S.

Government Printing Offi ce . GAO/GGD- 92 – 27 BR .

— — — . 2003 . Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns

Partially Explain Diff erences between Men’s and

Women’s Earnings . Washington, DC : U.S.

Government Printing Offi ce . GAO- 04 – 35 .

Discrimination, Affi rmative Action, and the New Public Service 923

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO) .

2005 . Equal Employment Opportunity: DOD’s EEO

Pilot Program Under Way . Washington, DC : U.S.

Government Printing Offi ce . GAO- 06 – 538 .

U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management (OPM) . 2006 .

Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program:

FY 2005 . www.opm.gov/feorpreports/2005/

feorp2005.pdf [ accessed August 2 , 2006 ].

Vars , Frederick E . , and William G . Bowen . 1998 .

Scholastic Aptitude, Test Scores, Race, and

Academic Performance in Selective Colleges and

Universities . In Th e Black – White Test Score Gap ,

edited by Christopher Jencks and Meredith

Phillips , 457 – 79 . Washington, DC : Brookings

Institution Press .

Waldfogel , Jane . 1998 . Understanding the “Family

Gap” in Pay for Women with Children . Journal of

Economic Perspective 12 ( 1 ): 137 – 56 .

Wilkins , Vicky M . , and Lael R . Keiser . 2006 . Linking

Passive and Active Representation by Gender: Th e

Case of Child Support Agencies . Journal of Public

Administration Research and Th eory 16 ( 1 ): 87 – 102 .

Willoughby , Katherine . 1991 . Gender-Based Wage

Gap: Th e Case of the State Budget Analyst . Review

of Public Personnel Administration 12 ( 1 ): 33 – 46 .

Wright , Peter , Stephen P . Ferris , Janine S . Hiller , and

Mark Kroll . 1995 . Competitiveness through

Management of Diversity: Eff ects on Stock Price

Valuation . Academy of Management Journal 38 ( 1 ):

272 – 87 .

Coming up in the January-February 2007 Issue of PAR . . .

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: AN ACADEMIC–PRACTITIONER EXCHANGE

Theory to Practice: Forecasting and Scoring Democratic-Constitutional Impacts

ESSAYS ON WORK MOTIVATION AND THE WORKPLACE TOPICS: organizational factors • the role of mission • non-work motivators

• work-family confl ict/enhancement • spirituality and public service

Administrative Case Study: Medicare Hospice Policy

AND MORE!