Apologies, but your article is bunkum.
A sea change. When Hillary Clinton was considering law schools in 1969, she was famously told by a Harvard professor that "we don\’t need any more women" at Harvard. She went to Yale. By the time she graduated, about 15% of law school grads were female. Now, the New York Times reported on Saturday, 48% are. About 45% of associates in US law firms are women (but just 18% of partners; the glass ceiling still exists). There are about 400 female judges on the federal circuit and appeals court benches, or about 25% of the total, meaning that Obama has a larger and more distinguished pool to choose from than his predecessors did.
We can\’t put these changes entirely down to affirmative action.
No, you cannot put them entirely down to affirmative action. In fact, you\’d be very hard stretched to put any of it down to affirmative action.
For, you see, here in the UK we have not had affirmative action over this timescale. In fact, Harriet Harman is only just now attempting to make such discrimination legal in this country in her Equalities Bill.
However, we have also, over that same time period, moved from very few women professionals to some 50% of entrants into professional careers being female.
So, exactly the same change, with and without affirmative action. Difficult to claim that as a victory for affirmative action, ain\’t it?