The Resilience of Affirmative Action in the 1980s: Innovation, Isomorphism, and Institutionalization in University Admissions

• Author: Daniel N. Lipson
• Published date: 01 March 2011
• Date: 01 March 2011
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909346737
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
64(1) 132 –144
The Resilience of Affirmative Action
© 2011 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
in the 1980s: Innovation, Isomorphism,
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909346737
http://prq.sagepub.com
and Institutionalization in
University Admissions
Daniel N. Lipson1
Abstract
This article applies neoinstitutional organization theory to uncover the central role of university officials in
institutionalizing aggressive, race-based affirmative admissions procedures at three selective public universities from
the late 1970s until the early 1990s. During this second stage of affirmative action, admissions and diversity officials
at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Wisconsin–Madison
began to increasingly emphasize the diversity rationale and the method of individualized review. At a time of increasing
judicial and executive scrutiny and skepticism of affirmative action, university officials defended and transformed race-
conscious admissions in innovative ways when they could have instead chosen to contribute to its demise.
Keywords
affirmative action, higher education, university admissions, racial policy, diversity, organizational behavior, organizational
theory
Conventional analyses hold that affirmative action became
Berkeley (UC-Berkeley), the University of Wisconsin–
endangered and weakened during the second stage of the
Madison (UW-Madison), and the University of Texas at
policy from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. According
Austin (UT-Austin)—crafted and developed their affirma-
to this view, a near demise of affirmative action resulted
tive admissions practices over time in light of developments
from unfavorable decisions by federal courts stacked by
in the admissions profession as well as broader political
conservative Republican appointees, from hostile actions by
trends. These affirmative action programs are voluntary, and
Republican lawmakers in general (and the Reagan and Bush
the universities could have simply decided to phase out such
I administrations in particular), and by conservative “color-
race-conscious inclusion policies.
blind” entrepreneurs who organized legal and political
Although the demise never came during the second
campaigns against affirmative action (for example, see
stage, affirmative action did experience a roller coaster of
Anderson 2004). “Colorblind” activists saw great success in
victories and defeats before federal courts over this time
attacking affirmative action by reframing the policy as
period. In his Regents of the University of California v.
“reverse discrimination,” constructing whites as the new
Bakke opinion, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), Justice Powell
racial victims.
banned the use of racial quotas as a tool to achieve the
Nonetheless, the much-predicted demise never came to
educational goal of diversity. Instead, his Bakke opinion
be during the second stage (for an in-depth study relying on
encouraged the use of racial preferences to achieve edu-
this periodicization of affirmative action, see Anderson
cational diversity. While his opinion banned preferences
2004), as affirmative action instead showed remarkable
or quotas that were rooted in the goal of correcting
resilience. This article suggests that the second stage of affir-
mative action was instead a time of development and
1State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, NY, USA
expansion in affirmative admissions at selective universities
despite a national political climate of legal and political hos-
Corresponding Author:
Daniel N. Lipson Department of Political Science and International
tility. I seek to understand how and why university officials
Relations, SUNY New Paltz, 1 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561
at three flagship campuses—the University of California,
E-mail: lipsond@newpaltz.edu

---

Lipson
133
“societal discrimination,” his support for the diversity
affirmative action in the 1980s requires more than under-
rationale sustained race-conscious inclusion policies.
standing the power of executive, legislative, and judicial
Meanwhile, affirmative action largely remained off the
actors. And it did not occur only for conventional economic
political agenda of legislators, presidents, and governors.
or rational reasons; rather, the resilience was also shaped by
With few exceptions, elected officials showed very little
a powerful combination of normative, mimetic, and coer-
interest in actively seeking to eliminate affirmative
cive pressures within the organizational fields of admissions
action; rather, they largely hoped that the issue would
and diversity affairs. University officials emphasized the
remain off the political agenda (Hochschild 1998;
educational value of diversity in part as a response to court
Skrentny 2001).
decisions (coercive isomorphism) along with the shared
Executive officials in various agencies under the
civil rights commitments and backgrounds of university
Reagan administration did curtail enforcement of equal
administrators (normative isomorphism) at a time of increas-
opportunity and affirmative action policies during the
ing professionalization of the organizational fields of
1980s, and these cuts in the regulatory system took their
admissions and diversity affairs (mimetic isomorphism).
toll (Orfield 1998, 6). However, from the vantage point of
To view university officials largely as implementers who
the actual organizations—including corporations, univer-
comply with judicial decisions (Canon and Johnson 1999)
sities, and even executive agencies—that devise, enact,
distorts the picture of the development of affirmative action.
implement, and reform race-conscious diversity mea-
Whereas law and politics scholars conventionally examine
sures, the second stage was a period in which such
affirmative action and colorblind policies in universities by
practices became more aggressive and more entrenched
examining the impact of judicial opinions (for example, see
as they evolved into instrumental diversity policies
Ball 2000; Welch and Gruhl 1998) and ballot measures (for
(Dobbin and Sutton 1998; Frymer and Skrentny 2004;
example, see Brown and Hirschman 2006; Chavez 1998;
Kelly and Dobbin 1998). Herein lies the paradox of affir-
Conrad and Sharpe 1996; Gibbs and Bankhead 2001; Ong
mative action in its second stage—how and why did
1999; Orfield and Miller 1998), this conventional impact-
affirmative action policies remain so resilient during the
of-law framework runs the risk of artificially positioning
Reagan era of cutting civil rights enforcement and stack-
formal law (e.g., judicial decisions and/or ballot measures)
ing the federal courts with conservative judges?
as the central independent variable driving changes in “orga-
To explain this paradox, it is necessary to broaden politi-
nizational rights practices” (Barnes and Burke 2006). In
cal analyses of policy development beyond the study of
contrast, neoinstitutional scholars have found that civil
conventional political actors—that is, voters, legislators,
rights and diversity professionals in corporations and gov-
chief executives, agency officials, judges, political parties,
ernment agencies have played a much more active role not
and interest groups (for example, see Chavez 1998; Keck
only in implementation but also in creation, interpretation,
2006; Kellough 2006; Klinkner and Smith 1999; Parikh
diffusion, and construction of the very compliance bench-
1997)—and also analyze the policy-making role of organi-
marks that courts later apply (Edelman, Uggen, and Erlanger
zational professionals (in this case, university officials) who
1999). In short, one cannot understand the resilience of
devise, enact, defend, and retheorize affirmative action.
race-conscious inclusion policies without understanding the
Little scholarship has been conducted on the development of
central role of the professionals who develop, enact, defend,
race-conscious inclusion policies in higher education from
and retheorize these policies.
the vantage point of organizational behavior. Few scholars
of affirmative action politics venture into the halls of the
The Three Stages of Affirmative Action
administrative buildings on their very own campuses as a
site of systematic research (for notable exceptions,
This research focuses specifically on the second stage of
see Berrey forthcoming; Douglass 2007; Karabel 2005;
affirmative action, which spans the late 1970s through the
Merelman 1995; Moore 2005; Pusser 2004; Welch and
early 1990s. Before probing this second stage, I will high-
Gruhl 1998). In contrast, sociolegal and organizational
light the first stage. Scholars trace the origins of hard
sociology scholars have long recognized the central political
race-based affirmative action to the late 1960s (Anderson
role organizational professionals—especially in the busi-
2004; Graham 1989, 1992; Skrentny 1996, 2002; Sugrue
ness sector—play in shaping and transforming law and
2004). More recently, Stulberg and Chen (2008) have traced
policy. This article provides a preliminary inquiry into the
the origins of race-based admissions in higher education to
paradox of affirmative action’s resilience from the late
the early 1960s. In the first stage of affirmative action—
1970s to the early 1990s by incorporating the insights of
...