[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-418410-105":59,"doc-detail-418410-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","reynolds-civil-rights-leaders-debate-affirmative-action","REYNOLDS, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION","","William Bradford Reynolds, assistant attorney general for civil rights, explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s newest affirmative action decision affects hiring goals and federal contractor requirements. Reynolds argues that race-conscious policies may be upheld using less intrusive alternatives such as outreach, recruitment, and training, and stresses that regulations should be tailored to past wrongs. Barry Goldstein (NAACP Legal Defense Fund) counters that the Court rejected victim-specific relief, raising concerns about how remedies can address discrimination without making it impracticable.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":45,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/religion-spirituality/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/reynolds-civil-rights-leaders-debate-affirmative-action/418410/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/reynolds-civil-rights-leaders-debate-affirmative-action/418410.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"mieayamfan","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-16","2026-09-28",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does Reynolds say the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling allows?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Reynolds says the benefits of race-conscious policies do not always have to be limited to individual discrimination victims. He also suggests courts may uphold affirmative action plans if they rely on less-intrusive approaches.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why does Reynolds say hiring goals may be unconstitutional?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"He argues hiring goals are apt to be unconstitutional compared with affirmative action programs focused on outreach, recruitment, and training, because remedies must be narrowly tailored.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does Goldstein challenge the Court and the Justice Department’s reasoning?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Goldstein argues that no justice adopted a position close to victim-specific relief and stresses that the victim-specific argument caused major concern for civil rights groups. He also questions Reynolds’s claims about proof and what is required to justify plans.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},418410,1790972591,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":44,"category_name":45,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090893677,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","Vo1。14,No。112  \n             Wednesday,June 11,1986  \n# REYNOLDS,CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE STATUS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION\n\nThe Justice Department and civil rights activists still cannot agree on whatthe U.S.Supreme Court's newest affirmative action ruling means,but Justice'scivil rights chief may be giving,slightly,on a few points.  \nWilliam Bradford Reynolds,assistant attorney general for civil'rights,speak-ing Friday at a conference held by the Bureau of National Affairs,said thebenefits of race-conscious policles do not always have to be 1imited to ind1-vidual discrimination victims.Debating Barry Goldstein,a lawyer for theNAACP Legal Defense Fund,Reynolds also conceded that courts may be able touphold an affirmative action plan without ruling an employer discriminated.  \nBut the Court's May 19 ruling in Wygant v.Jackson Board of Education(54 USLW4479)\"causes concern\"about regulations requiring federal contractors to adopthiring goals if they underemploy women or minorities,Reynolds said.The ad-ministration for nearly a year has debated revising the regulations,which werespawned by Executive Order 11246.  \nAmbiguous RulingWygant overturned a layoff policy by which some whiteteachers lost their jobs before blacks with less seniority(HED,May 23)。TheCourt allowed the possibility,though,that some race-preferential layoff plans--as well as hiring plans--could meet the constitutional demands the Jackson,Mich.,plan failed to satisfy.  \nWygant\"can be characterized as saying all things to all people or nothing toanyone.What clearly emerges are several extremely significant points,all ofwhich were urged successfully\"by Justice,Reynolds claimed.One of those 1sthat the U.S.Constitution\"protects individual,not group,rights,whether theclaim is raised by members of a minority group or nonminorities,\"he said.  \nPolicy Choices But,he said later,\"I'm not in a position after Wygant touse the word 'never'about hiring goals,\"which benefit groups of minorities.Justice had argued that the Constitution requires \"victim-specific\"relieflimited to individual discrimination victims along with affirmative action inthe form of recruitment or training programs without hiring preferences.  \nAt the conservative extreme for all but one justice in Wygant,Justice LewisPowell said the layoff plan hurt white teachers too much while race-conscioushiring would have hurt less.Reynolds took that as a sign the Court favorsless-intrusive alternatives,though,not that it condones race-preferentialhiring.(more)  \nS  \n6  \n     June 11,1986  \n# REYNOLDS,CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION(Cont.)\n\nHiring goals are apt to be unconstitutional“as compared to an affirmative ac-tion program [of]outreach,recruitment and training\"because the Court re-quired \"narrowly tailored\"remedies,he said.In fact,recruitment and victim-specific relief may be the rule if Wygant requlres employers to chose the leastintrusive alternative,he said.\"Based on what we've seen,\"there normally isa less intrusive means than hiring goals,Reynolds contended.  \n\"It will of course in this context be necessary to revlew programs\"such asOrder 11246 that require goals\"without first requiring a showing of inten-tional discriminatory conduct on the part of the employer,\"said Reynolds.  \nPrerequisites DebatedBecause signing a contract with the government isnot an admission of past discrimination,contracts should not entail affirma-tive action requirements,he said.\"There is clearly no effort [in the regula-tions]to tailor the remedy\"to past wrongs,Reynolds added.  \nGoldstein disagreed.\"Not one justice adopted\"a position close to victim-specific relief,he said.In fact,Justice Sandra Day o'Connor wrote that theCourt was unanimous in not requiring victim-specific relief,and no justicecontradicted her,he observed.\"The specific victim argument was the one thatcaused greatest concern to civil rights groups because that would make it wel1nigh impossible to remedy discrimination,\"Goldstein added.  \nReynolds als","cbCaikIurKEVO4oi","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaikIurKEVO4oi","pdf",1786463,"English","# REYNOLDS, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE STATUS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION\n## Supreme Court ruling and its implications\n## Wygant and constitutional limits\n## Policy choices and least-intrusive remedies\n## Debated prerequisites and evidentiary standards\n# REYNOLDS, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (Cont.)\n## Hiring goals versus outreach programs\n## Tailoring remedies to past wrongs\n## Victim-specific relief debate\n## Evidence, reasonable basis, and courtroom precision","[{\"question\":\"What does Reynolds say the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling allows?\",\"answer\":\"Reynolds says the benefits of race-conscious policies do not always have to be limited to individual discrimination victims. He also suggests courts may uphold affirmative action plans if they rely on less-intrusive approaches.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does Reynolds say hiring goals may be unconstitutional?\",\"answer\":\"He argues hiring goals are apt to be unconstitutional compared with affirmative action programs focused on outreach, recruitment, and training, because remedies must be narrowly tailored.\"},{\"question\":\"How does Goldstein challenge the Court and the Justice Department’s reasoning?\",\"answer\":\"Goldstein argues that no justice adopted a position close to victim-specific relief and stresses that the victim-specific argument caused major concern for civil rights groups. He also questions Reynolds’s claims about proof and what is required to justify plans.\"}]","REYNOLDS, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS DEBATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION | PDF",1790613108,18]