1995
The Regents of the University of California voted to
end affirmative action programs at all University of
California campuses. Beginning in 1997 for graduate
schools and 1998 for undergraduate admissions,
officials at the University were no longer allowed
to use race, gender, ethnicity or national origin as
a factor in admissions decisions.
1995
The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission released a
report on the endurance or barriers that deny women
and minorities access to decision-making positions
and issued a recommendation "that corporate America
use affirmative action as a tool ensuring that all
qualified individuals have equal access and
opportunity to compete based on ability and merit."
1996
California's Proposition 209 passed by a narrow
margin in the November election. Prop. 209 abolished
all public-sector affirmative action programs in the
state in employment, education and contracting.
Clause (C) of Prop. 209 permits gender
discrimination that is "reasonably necessary" to the
"normal operation" of public education, employment
and contracting.
1996
In Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996) the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against
the University of Texas, deciding that its law
school's policy of considering race in the
admissions process was a violation of the
Constitution's equal-protection guarantee. The U.S.
Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the
ruling because the program at issue was no longer in
use.
1997
Voters in Houston supported affirmative action
programs in city contracting and hiring by rejecting
an initiative that would banish such efforts.
Houston proved that the wording on an initiative is
a critical factor in influencing the voters'
response. Instead of deceptively focusing attention
on "preferential treatment," voters were asked
directly if they wanted to "end affirmative action
programs." They said no.
1997
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge
to California's Prop. 209. By declining to review
the case, the court did not decide the case, the
court did not decide the case on its merits but
allowed Prop. 209 to go into effect.