Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is a set of policies, beginning in the 1960s, that aim to increase opportunities for marginalized groups. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and an executive order, businesses that received federal funds could no longer use aptitude tests that discriminated against Black Americans. It was eventually expanded to cover women and other marginalized groups as well as universities and government agencies.

Affirmative action and racial quotas in college admissions have been challenged since the 1970s with its opponents claiming “reverse discrimination.” The Court eventually outlawed quota programs but allowed colleges to consider race as a factor in admission decisions.

In 2023, a Supreme Court decision struck down affirmative action in college admissions meaning that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a basis of granting admission. This decision backslides decades hard-won progress for students of color seeking higher education.

Another Blow to Women’s Equality at Work: The Trump Administration Is Trying to Weaken a Key Workplace Discrimination Protection

PUBLISHED 8/6/2026 by

The Trump administration is attempting to weaken one of the nation’s most important workplace discrimination protections—a legal standard that has, for decades, allowed workers to challenge hiring and promotion policies that unfairly exclude qualified people, even when those policies appear neutral on their face.

A new opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued in June, argues these longstanding interpretations of Title VII’s “disparate-impact” standard are unconstitutional, and contends certain Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance improperly allows employers to be held liable based on discriminatory effects rather than intent. The opinion is meant to guide executive branch enforcement.

Civil rights advocates are pushing back, arguing the new OLC opinion misstates decades of Supreme Court precedent and congressional action.

Below is a joint explainer—issued by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), Democracy Forward, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), Equal Rights Advocates, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF—originally published as “The Office of Legal Counsel’s Opinion on the ‘Constitutionality of Disparate-Impact Liability Under Title VII’: What You Need to Know.”

The organizations argue that the opinion does not change federal law. Instead, they emphasize that only Congress can amend Title VII and that courts—not the executive branch—determine how the law is interpreted. Employers, they say, remain legally obligated to comply with existing anti-discrimination protections.

“Across America, workers are struggling to find living-wage jobs to support themselves and their families. Too often, qualified workers are blocked from getting hired and promoted due to employer policies that screen out applicants based on factors unrelated to whether the applicant could do the job, from unnecessary college degree requirements and credit checks to commute-radius limitations and AI resume reviews. The Trump-Vance administration is making this problem worse.

“For decades, under Supreme Court precedent, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), and other legal authority, workers have been able to challenge exclusionary policies like these using a legal tool known as “disparate-impact liability.” That tool has resulted in employers adopting more thoughtful, rigorous standards in evaluating their own selection criteria and advancing their business objectives. The administration is now attacking this tool, encouraging employers to ignore the harms caused by their own policies while denying workers the ability to question whether those policies are justified and fair.

“In its latest move, the Trump-Vance administration’s Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released an opinion claiming that longstanding U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on disparate-impact liability under Title VII is unconstitutional. The OLC opinion is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. Only Congress and the courts have authority to change the law or its impact.”

One Year In: 53 Ways the Second Trump Administration Is Harming Women and Families

PUBLISHED 1/20/2026 by

A sweeping, year-one rundown of how Trump’s second-term power grabs and policy rollbacks are eroding women’s rights, healthcare and economic security, including—from dismantling the Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor and shuttering reproductive health clinics, to passing historic cuts to the Medicaid program and sowing mistrust in abortion pill safety.

Trump’s War on Education: A Week-by-Week Timeline of Cuts, Bans and Rollbacks

PUBLISHED 2/28/2025 by | UPDATED 6/24/2025 at 1:06 P.M. PT

Since taking office Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has unleashed a flurry of orders and actions designed to reshape the federal government’s role in education. The agency has also begun laying off employees, including in its Office for Civil Rights. At the same time, the Trump administration is attempting to redefine what the federal government considers discrimination in schools and on college campuses.

We’ve compiled these actions below and will update this list as Trump’s second term unfolds.

DEI in the Age of Trump: A Roadmap on How to Build More Just Communities in the Next Four Years

PUBLISHED 1/18/2025 by

With Trump’s second presidential administration looming before us, Americans who care deeply about equality and social justice are asking ourselves: What now? How do we move forward in this dramatically changed political and legislative climate? What actions will have a fighting chance of getting traction? What is the most effective sphere of influence for individuals?

For Women to Have Real Political Power, We Need Quotas

PUBLISHED 10/22/2024 by

Since 1789, only six women have occupied a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, one of the most crucial institutions for justice in this country; and in the last 237 years, only 60 women have held a seat in the U.S. Senate. 

In order to achieve true parity, the United States needs to implement affirmative actions—gender quotas established by law. This will ensure that women are selected, appointed and supported by political platforms. Strategically speaking, these quotas would ensure that women rise to the same level of political opportunities as men.

We Must Fight Back Against the Supreme Court’s Attacks on Women’s Equality

PUBLISHED 8/26/2024 by

Monday, Aug. 26, marks Women’s Equality Day 2024. This annual celebration commemorates the certification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. It’s a reminder that the founding promise of equality in our Constitution was not always available to everyone—and that women have had to fight to be treated as equals to men. That is particularly true for women of color, many of whom could not vote even for decades following passage of the 19th Amendment due to racial restrictions in voting laws. 

April 2024 Reads for the Rest of Us

PUBLISHED 4/1/2024 by

Each month, we provide Ms. readers with a list of new books being published by writers from historically excluded groups.

Here are 25 fantastic books releasing this month that we recommend you dig into. There are stunning debuts, masterful historical fiction, kaleidoscopic short stories, thoughtful manifestas, moving memoirs, groundbreaking nonfiction, and so much more.

Reconstructing the Roberts Court

PUBLISHED 3/5/2024 by

The Supreme Court will soon make monumental decisions on presidential immunity, racial gerrymandering and abortion pills that stand to harm marginalized people and reinforce the privileges of wealth and whiteness.

Perhaps it is unremarkable that an institution dominated by white men since its inception struggles to be inclusive. But the Roberts Court’s consideration of the Reconstruction Amendments—the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution—is especially alarming.

The Fight to End Legacy Admissions Must Account for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

PUBLISHED 1/25/2024 by

As we sat on the bleachers, my grandfather became bored with waiting to see his first grandchild, my brother, walk across the stage for his bachelor’s degree. Using his bellowing voice, he broke out singing NYU’s alma mater song. I was mortified. But over the years, I have come to appreciate how he embraced the power of legacy.

The uprooting of affirmative action has left an unequal scale in the world of admissions, which many believe should be addressed by removing legacy admissions entirely. However, my grandfather’s story and the stories of many others like him point to an essential reason why legacy admissions should continue—just with restrictions that center on diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as on restoring access to economic, social, and cultural disinvestment in underrepresented groups.