Contenu du sommaire : L'Affirmative Action en question.

The introduction of affirmative action policies in employment at the very end of the 1960s runs directly counter to the principle of non-discrimination that had been incorporated into statutory law by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The present article attempts to throw some light on the causal dynamics that led to such a swift reversal. It argues that, despite some enduring misunderstandings, preferential treatment on the basis of race was never considered by the Johnson Administration. Nor can it be plausibly interpreted as the result of a hidden arrangement made by the economic elites of the two main racial groups with a view to preserving the existing social order. The emergence of affirmative action should rather be understood as the contingent product of two analytically distinct factors : first, a perception on the part of the American administration of the existence of an ongoing political crisis, which led it to look favorably upon any measure that might shortly better the economic predicament of the Black community and thereby prevent the re-occurrence of riots such as those of the 1965-1968 period ; second, and most importantly, the electoral tactics of President Richard Nixon.

The phrase "affirmative action " has been defined as a continuum of different responses to discrimination from measures designed to prevent discrimination against women and nonwhite individuals (protective affirmative action) to measures meant to increase the number of women and nonwhites in a work force by giving them preference. Because affirmative action has raised critical questions, it serves as the line that divides intellectuals who are engaged in a moral debate concerning fundamental notions of justice and equality with a significant overlap between the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution and philosophical conceptions of justice. Is affirmative action still necessary in the 1990s ? Several questions for consideration emerge among the principal philosophical arguments because they reflect the most critical moral conflicts in the Academy and within the Liberal culture. This article recalls the historical factors leading to affirmative action and, after delimiting the scope of the analysis, describes some of the most salient features of libertarian, conservative, contractarian, egalitarian and marxist conceptions while attempting to show an evolution of both liberals and conservatives with a claim for de-racialized, colorblind economic and social programs.

When Adarand v. Pena was handed down in June of 1995, many were the observers who remarked that the Supreme Court had dealt a mortal blow to affirmative action by submitting even federal programs and not just state ones to «strict scrutiny». Three years later, affirmative action programs have not been systematically dismantled and paradoxically, to some degree, they have found their legitimacy reinforced by the strong challenge from the Court. The purpose of this article is to show how the power of resolution of the Supreme Court is limited on social questions such as affirmative action, and so how the action of the Court in this field is more the result of default by Congress and the executive than the consequence of conservative judicial fiat. In order to understand Adarand and its progeny, one indeed needs to reaffirm strongly that the decisions of the Supreme Court have to be interpreted as cues in a larger political dialogue between the three branches of the federal government, between the federal government and the state governments, and finally between government and the actors of the private sectors, who, in the case of affirmative action, see nothing positive coming out of a simple dismantling without concomitant redesigning of the tools necessary to handle the racial question.

On July 21, 1997, the Regents of the University of California endorsed a resolution, SP-1, a new policy ensuring equal treatment in admissions. It stated that « the University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as criteria for admission to the University or to any program of study ». This essay is an attempt to assess the impact of this resolution on the enrollment of underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities at the University of California, with particular emphasis on the Davis Campus. It will show that new policies intended for the promotion of economically disadvantaged individuals did not, at least in the short term, make up for Affirmative Action programs. Underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities' enrollment has been declining since 1997 and the number of minority students in the overall student body is decreasing, especially for Chicanos and Latinos. Such a decline may have serious consequences on the ethnic and racial make-up of future generations of professionals and ultimately on the social fabric of the United States.

This paper analyzes the discursive practices resorted to by both supporters and opponents of affirmative action programs. After a semantic analysis the focus will shift to a presentation of the syllogisms and various rhetorical approaches preferred by the two groups of opponents. The last section will deal with the ideological uses of the affirmative action debate which often operates as a polemic.