What Happens to Minority Women When We Eliminate Affirmative Action?

President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 in 1961 introducing Affirmative Action to the American workplace. More than 40 years later, the ramifications still deeply affect millions of lives. Affirmative Action was a way to provide a more level playing field for groups that faced systemic discrimination. It initially included protected groups such as racial and ethnic minorities, but President Johnson extended it to include women as well. It had positive employment and occupational advancement effect, especially for minority women, allowing them to participate in work spheres that were previously inaccessible to them (Kurtulus 2012, Kurtulus 2015).

In 1996, California became the first state to repeal Affirmative Action in state and local government employment with the passing of Proposition 209. In the next years, other states such as Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire did away with it as well. In this week's HKS WAPPP Seminar, Dr. Fidan Ana Kurtulus, Associate Professor Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talked about her latest paper, which looks at the consequences of these bans on minority and female employment.

Professor Fidan Ana Kurtulus, UMASS Amherst

The repeals of Affirmative Action in these states presented the opportunity to study what researchers refer to as a 'natural experiment'. The bans were an exogenous shock that allowed Kurtulus to study the before and after share of minorities and women in the workforce of state and local government agencies where the bans went into effect as compared to the before and after shares of minority employment in places where Affirmative Action remained in place.

Another unique feature of her research is the dataset she worked with. The EEO-4 dataset has not been generally available to researches. It is a dataset that contains the demographic characteristics of  employees of state and local agencies, and covers a long time span, from 1990 to 2009. “There had not been any scientific researchers that had used these data in its full form”, explained Kurtulus, adding that she was excited to be working with this resource.

And while the dataset itself is interesting, the results of her research are even more so. Kurtulus found that once Affirmative Action is repealed, the share of Hispanic men that work in state or local government decreases by 7%; the share of black women goes down by 4%, and the share of Asian women is reduced by 37%. The figure for Asian women might seem disproportionately large but she explained that the reason for this is that there were very few Asian women in that workforce to begin with, so any change would produce a large effect. In all, the loss of workplace diversity is significant.

 “Can these results say anything to people that oppose Affirmative Action?" Kurtulus asked, and answered her own question with an emphatic 'yes', this is "data driven evidence on the implications of removing Affirmative Action". In addition, the findings are very timely. "It is very timely because other states are considering the possibility of banning Affirmative Action... A lot of the debate is really being driven by rhetoric that is not empirical in nature", she commented. This research can bridge that gap, so we can hold a debate on this issue that is better informed.

Does Having Daughters Affect Judges’ Voting?

The Woman: Maya Sen, Doctoral Candidate, Harvard Department of Government
The Talk: Like Daughter, Like Judge: How Having Daughters Affects Judges’ Voting on Women’s Issues
The Question: Is it political party, or social ties, that impact judges' voting?

Maya Sen began her talk earlier today with a photo of Justice Blackmun. “Does anyone know who this is?” she asked casually. The audience, including myself, starred back blankly. “No? He is a lifelong republican, appointed by Richard Nixon, to the Supreme Court in 1970.” Still no response from the audience. “He is the author of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and the father of three daughters.” Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the famous opinion in 1973, arguably the most important Supreme Court decision on women’s issues.

Of Blackmun’s three daughters, one became pregnant in college. She later miscarried, but not before dropping out and marrying her then boyfriend. Did this experience impact Justice Blackmun's historic decision? It is impossible to determine; however, Sen uses this analogy to question, “Is it our political affiliations, or our social ties, that influence a justice’s decisions?”

Although Sen’s research is in its preliminary phase, her and several colleagues argue the latter view. Their research looks at the rulings of “gender-related” cases from more than 400 judges on the Court of Appeals from 1996 to 2002. What they find is that when a judge has a daughter -- even just one daughter -- it increases the probability he or she will vote in liberal direction on gender cases. Furthermore, these findings appear to be even more pronounced for men who were nominated by a Republican -- by up to 10 percent. This effect persists even after controlling for age, race, and religion.

So why is this important?
Most political science literature claims a justice’s ideological position tends to be based on the party who appointed him or her, or the judge’s individual interpretation of a specific legal text. However, Sen and other researchers appear to be challenging this. Additional research from Yale corroborates that, “each daughter increases a congress person’s propensity to vote liberally, particularly on reproductive rights issues.”* Supporting these findings, Sen’s research did not show liberal leaning tendencies on all rulings, just gender-related cases.

Justices frequently rule on significant gender related issues -- discrimination at public military colleges, decisions on partial birth abortions, laws around domestic violence -- almost always disproportionately impact women. As of 2008, the US Court of Appeals had only 65 female judges, or slightly over 10 percent. While almost 50 percent of recent law school graduates are female, women still lack parity in the courtroom. Perhaps empathetic justices can make up the difference.


Melissa Sandgren is a MPP1 at the Harvard Kennedy School and a participant in WAPPP's From Harvard Square to the Oval Office program.

*Washington, Ebonya (2007). "Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers’ Voting on Women’s Issues," Yale University, New Haven, CT.