Not surprisingly some studies found significant

against minority-owned businesses. Not surprisingly, some studies found
significant evidence of discrimination, and based on these findings some
post- Croson affirmative action plans were approved. 103
The Clinton administration responded to the Adarand ruling by ask-
ing the Justice Department and various federal agencies to assess their
policies and practices and determine whether federal affirmative action
programs met the strict scrutiny standard. The Thernstroms characterize
this decision as “rationalization, denial, and deception” because, like
many conservatives, they would like to use Adarand to justify an imme-
diate end to all affirmative action policies. But the Court did not hold
that affirmative action plans were illegitimate. These decisions were
more of an alarm bell than a death knell. The Clinton administration’s
CIVIL RIGHTS AND RACIAL EQUALITY 189

response was entirely appropriate, and by the end of the review, they had
“eliminated or altered” seventeen affirmative action programs, which
“led to sharp decreases in the amount of Federal contracts awarded to
companies owned by minorities or women.” 104 Where it decided to
retain programs, the Bush administration has defended the Clinton
administration’s decision.
THE POLITICS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: SYMBOLS AND REALITIES
The 1960s antidiscrimination policies are not the failure conservatives
and critics make them out to be. On the contrary, these policies are very
cautious but partial remedies for a long history of exploitation and racial
discrimination. Conservatives are wrong: the Supreme Court did not
audaciously rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Act in Griggs v. Duke Power
and replace discrimination against African Americans with discrimina-
tion against whites by extending Title VII to unintentional discrimina-
tion. Instead, the Court recognized what many of its critics refuse to see:
Congress intended Title VII not just to outlaw racial discrimination in
labor markets but also to open up economic opportunities for African
Americans and other people of color. If Title VII had been narrowly
restricted to specific acts of intentional discrimination as conservatives
would like, it would not have reached so-called race-neutral practices like
nepotism and would not have been effective.
Enforcement of Title VII and the federal government’s contract com-
pliance program opened up jobs and a better life to many African
Americans, from unskilled black textile workers in the South to college-
educated black women. Just as important, these laws helped transform
labor markets by breaking down distinctions between “white work” and
“black work” while eliminating the most egregious discriminatory
employment practices. The evidence also suggests that these changes did
not, as conservatives argue, lead to reverse discrimination or impose
large disadvantages on white workers. The 1960s antidiscrimination
policies are controversial because they minimized the advantage whites
brought to labor markets and thus devalued whiteness. On the other