What If Affirmative Action Never Existed?

The Actual History

Affirmative action emerged in the United States during the early 1960s as a set of policies aimed at improving opportunities for historically marginalized groups, particularly racial minorities and women. The term itself first appeared in Executive Order 10925, issued by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

This initial policy foundation was strengthened by President Lyndon B. Johnson's Executive Order 11246 in 1965, which expanded affirmative action requirements for government contractors and established the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to enforce these provisions. Johnson's famous Howard University speech in June 1965 articulated the philosophical justification for affirmative action, arguing that "freedom is not enough" and that "you do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

The implementation of affirmative action expanded throughout the late 1960s and 1970s. In higher education, universities began adopting race-conscious admissions policies to increase diversity on campus. In the workplace, both public and private employers established hiring goals and timetables to address historical underrepresentation of minorities and women. The Philadelphia Plan, implemented by the Nixon administration in 1969, required federal contractors in the construction industry to set specific goals for hiring minority workers.

However, affirmative action has faced continuous legal challenges since its inception. The Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke established that while racial quotas were unconstitutional, race could be considered as one factor among many in admissions decisions to achieve the compelling state interest of diversity. Subsequent cases like Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) reinforced that narrowly tailored race-conscious admissions policies could be constitutional, while Gratz v. Bollinger (also 2003) struck down point-based systems that automatically awarded advantages based solely on race.

Opposition to affirmative action intensified in the 1990s and 2000s, with several states including California (Proposition 209 in 1996), Michigan, and Washington passing ballot initiatives prohibiting the consideration of race in public education, employment, and contracting. The Supreme Court continued to narrow the permissible scope of affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013 and 2016).

The most significant change came in June 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional, effectively ending race-based affirmative action in higher education admissions across the United States.

Throughout its six-decade history, affirmative action has been credited with increasing diversity in higher education, corporate leadership, and government positions. Studies have shown that affirmative action helped expand the Black middle class, improve educational outcomes for minorities, and increase diversity in professional fields like medicine, law, and business. However, critics have argued that such policies constitute reverse discrimination, stigmatize beneficiaries, and fail to address underlying structural inequalities in American society.

By 2025, institutions across the United States have been implementing race-neutral alternatives to promote diversity following the Supreme Court's 2023 decision, with varying degrees of success in maintaining the representation of underrepresented minorities in selective institutions.

The Point of Divergence

What if affirmative action policies had never been implemented in the United States? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the concept of "affirmative action" never gained traction in American politics and policy during the crucial civil rights era of the 1960s.

Several plausible divergence points could have prevented the emergence of affirmative action:

First, President Kennedy might never have issued Executive Order 10925 in 1961. In our timeline, this order established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and first used the term "affirmative action." In an alternate timeline, Kennedy might have focused exclusively on anti-discrimination measures without incorporating the affirmative or proactive element. Perhaps influenced by more conservative advisors or concerned about political backlash, Kennedy could have limited his civil rights initiatives to prohibiting discrimination rather than requiring positive steps to remedy past discrimination.

Alternatively, following Kennedy's assassination, President Johnson might have taken a different approach to civil rights. Johnson was crucial in expanding affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 and articulating its philosophical justification in his Howard University speech. In our alternate timeline, Johnson might have been persuaded that color-blind policies alone would be sufficient to address racial inequalities, or he might have faced stronger opposition from within his own party that forced him to abandon more proactive measures.

A third possibility involves the Philadelphia Plan under the Nixon administration. In our timeline, this plan, which required federal contractors to set specific hiring goals for minorities, surprisingly expanded affirmative action despite Nixon's conservative credentials. In an alternate timeline, Nixon might have sided with Comptroller General Elmer Staats, who initially ruled the plan illegal, effectively killing the affirmative action approach in federal contracting.

Finally, early judicial intervention could have prevented affirmative action from taking root. If the Supreme Court had ruled definitively against race-conscious remedies in an early test case (perhaps with a differently composed Court), the legal foundation for affirmative action might have collapsed before it could be widely implemented.

In this alternate timeline, we'll assume that a combination of these factors—particularly Johnson's decision to pursue only anti-discrimination rather than affirmative measures after Kennedy's death, coupled with early judicial skepticism—prevented affirmative action from becoming established policy. Anti-discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would still exist, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but the additional step of requiring or encouraging proactive measures to increase representation of underrepresented groups never materialized.

Immediate Aftermath

Higher Education in the Late 1960s and 1970s

Without affirmative action policies, the demographic composition of America's elite universities would have evolved quite differently in the immediate post-Civil Rights era. In our timeline, selective colleges and graduate schools began implementing race-conscious admissions policies in the late 1960s, leading to significant increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment. In this alternate timeline, these institutions would have removed explicit barriers to minority enrollment but would not have taken proactive steps to increase diversity.

Harvard University, which in our timeline increased its Black student enrollment from about 2% in 1965 to 7% by 1975, would likely have seen much more modest growth, perhaps reaching only 3-4% by the mid-1970s. Similarly, professional schools in medicine, law, and business would have remained overwhelmingly white and male through this period.

Some institutions, particularly public universities in states with significant minority populations like California, Texas, and Florida, might have implemented alternative approaches such as guaranteed admission to top graduates from all high schools in the state. However, without the legal frameworks supporting race-conscious admissions, these efforts would have been more limited and less effective at increasing minority representation.

Employment and Corporate America

The workplace impacts would have been even more pronounced. In our timeline, federal contractors were required to develop affirmative action plans with goals and timetables for increasing minority employment. Major corporations like AT&T, IBM, and General Motors established diversity initiatives partly in response to these requirements and partly to avoid potential lawsuits.

Without these pressures, corporate America would have moved much more slowly toward workforce integration. While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would still have prohibited overt discrimination, the passive "we don't discriminate" approach would have replaced the active "we seek diversity" stance that developed under affirmative action. Studies of federal contractor policies in our timeline found that affirmative action increased Black employment at these companies by 5-15%; without these policies, these gains would not have materialized.

Labor unions, particularly in industries like construction, transportation, and manufacturing, would have maintained their predominantly white male membership for much longer without the external pressure to diversify that affirmative action created.

Political and Social Reactions

The absence of affirmative action would have significantly altered the political discourse around race in America. Conservative opposition to "quotas" and "preferences," which became a powerful political force in our timeline, would have taken different forms. Instead of attacking affirmative action directly, conservative politicians might have focused more on opposing busing for school integration or other civil rights enforcement mechanisms.

Civil rights organizations would have pursued different strategies. The NAACP, Urban League, and other groups that in our timeline used affirmative action as a tool for advancing opportunity would instead have concentrated more on enforcing anti-discrimination laws and perhaps pushed harder for economic remedies like targeted investments in minority communities or reparations.

Jesse Jackson, who in our timeline founded Operation PUSH in 1971 partly to advocate for affirmative action in private industry, might have focused more exclusively on consumer boycotts and community development initiatives rather than pushing corporations to set hiring and promotion goals for minorities.

Legal Developments

The legal landscape would have evolved very differently without affirmative action cases shaping equal protection jurisprudence. In our timeline, cases like DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) established the constitutional parameters for race-conscious policies. Without affirmative action, the Supreme Court's equal protection doctrine might have developed along more strictly color-blind lines from the beginning.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would have interpreted its mandate differently, focusing exclusively on investigating complaints of discrimination rather than encouraging proactive diversity measures. This would have resulted in a more reactive approach to workplace discrimination, addressing problems only after they occurred rather than preventing them through diversification requirements.

Impact on Minority Communities

For Black, Hispanic, and other minority communities, the absence of affirmative action would have significantly limited pathways to professional advancement in the crucial decades following the civil rights movement. The Black middle class, which expanded significantly in the 1970s and 1980s partly due to increased access to higher education and professional employment through affirmative action, would have grown more slowly and remained smaller.

First-generation college students from minority backgrounds would have faced even steeper barriers to entry into elite institutions. While some exceptional individuals would still have succeeded through pure merit, the systematic underrepresentation in higher education would have persisted longer and improved more slowly without intentional efforts to increase diversity.

Women, who also benefited substantially from affirmative action policies in our timeline, would have faced continued barriers in male-dominated fields like engineering, law enforcement, and construction. The gender integration of these professions would have proceeded more gradually without the policy tools that affirmative action provided.

Long-term Impact

Educational Inequality and Systemic Effects

By the 1990s, the educational landscape in this alternate timeline would show markedly different patterns of representation. Elite universities that in our timeline achieved 10-15% Black and Hispanic enrollment by the 1990s might instead have plateaued at perhaps 5-8%, with minority students concentrated in less selective institutions. This stratification would have reinforced existing socioeconomic inequalities and limited minority access to elite networks and opportunities.

The pipeline problem would have compounded over generations. With fewer minority students at top undergraduate institutions, graduate and professional schools would have had an even smaller pool of qualified applicants. Medical schools, which in our timeline increased their minority enrollment significantly in the 1970s and 1980s through affirmative action, might have remained overwhelmingly white, exacerbating disparities in healthcare delivery and research priorities.

The long-term consequences for educational inequality would extend beyond just enrollment numbers. Campus environments would have remained less diverse, limiting the educational benefits of diversity for all students. Research has shown that diverse learning environments enhance critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity—benefits that would be diminished in this alternate timeline.

By 2025, we might see elite higher education institutions with minority enrollment rates similar to those of the early 1980s in our timeline—better than the 1960s, but far from representative of America's population.

Economic Disparities and Wealth Gap

The economic implications of this alternate history would be profound and far-reaching. The racial wealth gap, already substantial, would likely be even wider without affirmative action's role in expanding educational and employment opportunities for minorities over the past half-century.

Without the business and government contracting components of affirmative action, minority business development would have progressed much more slowly. In our timeline, programs that set aside a percentage of government contracts for minority-owned businesses helped create and sustain a generation of minority entrepreneurs. In this alternate timeline, these businesses would have faced even greater challenges in securing capital, contracts, and connections necessary for growth.

Corporate leadership would remain significantly less diverse. While our timeline has seen slow but steady progress in diversifying corporate boards and executive teams (with still far to go), this alternate timeline would show even more homogeneous leadership. A 2021 study found that S&P 500 companies had about 6% Black and 5% Hispanic directors; in our alternate timeline, these percentages might be half as large, with corresponding implications for corporate decision-making and priorities.

Income disparities would likely be more pronounced as well. Economists have attributed part of the growth in the Black middle class since the 1970s to affirmative action's role in opening professional opportunities. Without these policies, Black and Hispanic representation in high-paying professions like medicine, law, engineering, and finance would be significantly lower, with ripple effects on community wealth and development.

Alternative Policy Development

In the absence of affirmative action, policymakers concerned with racial inequality might have developed alternative approaches. Class-based interventions might have gained more traction earlier, with programs targeting socioeconomic disadvantage rather than race specifically. This could have included expanded need-based financial aid, investment in community colleges, and workforce development programs targeted at economically distressed areas.

Some states might have experimented with geographic-based approaches similar to Texas's "Top 10% Plan," which guarantees state university admission to top graduates from each high school. However, research has shown that such race-neutral alternatives are generally less effective at increasing racial diversity than direct race-conscious measures.

By the 2010s, growing awareness of persistent inequality might have led to renewed calls for more direct interventions. Without the constitutional framework established around affirmative action, these interventions might have taken different forms—perhaps more focused on community investment, criminal justice reform, or targeted K-12 education funding rather than individual preference programs.

Cultural and Social Integration

The social fabric of American institutions would show different patterns of integration and interaction. Professional networks, which often form during college and graduate school years, would remain more segregated. This would affect hiring practices, mentorship opportunities, and professional advancement for minorities.

The "critical mass" theory articulated in our timeline's Supreme Court cases argued that a sufficient representation of minority students was necessary to break down stereotypes and create an environment where individuals could be seen as more than representatives of their race. Without affirmative action creating these critical masses in institutions, racial stereotypes might have persisted more strongly and been challenged less frequently.

Military leadership, which in our timeline actively embraced affirmative action as essential to effectiveness in a diverse force, would be less representative of the enlisted ranks. The military's success with diversity initiatives has often been cited as evidence for affirmative action's benefits; in this alternate timeline, this model would not exist.

Political Landscape and Discourse

Without affirmative action as a wedge issue, American political discourse around race would have developed differently. Conservative movements might have found other racial issues to mobilize around, but the specific arguments against "racial preferences" that animated many campaigns and judicial appointments would be absent.

The Supreme Court would have addressed different questions in its equal protection jurisprudence. Without cases like Grutter, Gratz, and Fisher shaping the doctrine around strict scrutiny of race-based classifications, the Court might have developed a more consistently color-blind approach to equal protection or might have focused more on issues of disparate impact in facially neutral policies.

By 2025, conversations about racial justice might focus more directly on economic inequality, criminal justice reform, and direct investment in minority communities rather than on questions of representation and opportunity in elite institutions. The Black Lives Matter movement would likely still have emerged in response to police violence, but its policy demands might have emphasized different remedies in the absence of the affirmative action precedent.

Global Comparative Perspective

From an international perspective, the United States would have diverged further from countries that implemented more robust positive action measures. Nations like Brazil, India, Malaysia, and South Africa have all implemented various forms of preferential policies to address historical disadvantage. In our alternate timeline, the U.S. would be notable for its reliance on purely anti-discrimination measures without corresponding positive action.

This might have affected America's global standing and soft power, particularly in relations with developing nations with significant historical inequalities of their own. The U.S. model of addressing racial inequality would be seen as less interventionist and potentially less effective, perhaps reducing its influence in shaping equality policies globally.

Expert Opinions

Dr. William J. Collins, Terence E. Adderley Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University, offers this perspective: "Without affirmative action policies in place since the 1960s, we would likely see substantially lower representation of African Americans and other minorities in elite educational institutions and high-status occupations today. My research on the economic gains of the civil rights era suggests that while anti-discrimination laws removed important barriers, the proactive measures of affirmative action were crucial in translating formal equality into actual economic mobility. In an alternate timeline without these policies, the Black-white income gap would likely be 15-20% larger than it currently is, with corresponding effects on wealth accumulation across generations."

Professor Melissa Harris-Perry, Maya Angelou Presidential Chair at Wake Forest University, suggests: "The absence of affirmative action would have profoundly shaped not just the demographic composition of institutions but the very questions we ask about American democracy. Without the critical mass of diverse voices that affirmative action helped introduce into academia, law, medicine, and corporate America, entire fields of inquiry like critical race theory, intersectionality studies, and research on health disparities might have developed more slowly or differently. What we've learned from standpoint epistemology is that who asks the questions shapes what knowledge we produce. In an alternate timeline without affirmative action, we might have remained ignorant of crucial aspects of social reality simply because the people best positioned to identify those issues were excluded from knowledge-producing institutions."

Dr. Richard D. Kahlenberg, Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation, presents a different view: "Without race-based affirmative action, I believe we would have seen earlier and more robust development of class-based alternatives that could address racial inequality while also helping economically disadvantaged students of all backgrounds. My research suggests that well-designed socioeconomic preference programs can produce substantial racial diversity while avoiding some of the political and legal vulnerabilities of explicitly race-conscious approaches. In this alternate timeline, universities might have pioneered more creative approaches to recruiting first-generation college students, investing in underserved communities, and addressing the deeper structural factors that limit opportunity. The recent Supreme Court decision effectively ending race-conscious admissions may ultimately push us toward this alternate path that might have developed decades earlier."