Affirmative action examples fall into a handful of recognizable categories: targeted recruitment that widens the applicant pool, voluntary diversity programs at private employers, race-neutral admissions strategies at colleges, small business set-asides in government contracting, and hiring benchmarks for protected veterans and individuals with disabilities. Two major legal shifts between 2023 and 2025 narrowed the list. The Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions in 2023, and a January 2025 executive order revoked the 1965 directive that had required federal contractors to maintain race- and sex-based affirmative action plans. What remains is a smaller, more clearly defined set of practices.
Targeted Recruitment and Outreach
The most common and legally durable example is broadening the candidate pool. An employer who notices that certain departments lack diversity can expand where job postings appear, partner with professional organizations that serve underrepresented groups, and attend career fairs at historically Black colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions, or disability-focused networks. An engineering firm might work with professional associations to reach qualified candidates who would never see a posting on the company’s usual channels.
None of this involves preferential treatment in the hiring decision itself. It just means more qualified people learn about the opening. Title VII prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, wages, promotions, and virtually every aspect of employment.1U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC History: The Law Casting a wider net doesn’t conflict with that prohibition. It reinforces it by reducing the chance that qualified people are overlooked because they didn’t hear about the job.
Before Executive Order 11246 was revoked, federal contractors with more than 50 employees and contracts above $50,000 were required to maintain written affirmative action plans that included outreach commitments of this kind. That mandate is gone. Many employers continue the practice voluntarily because it produces better hiring outcomes and reduces exposure to disparate impact claims.
Voluntary Diversity Programs at Private Employers
Private employers with 15 or more employees are subject to Title VII, and the EEOC has stated that diversity initiatives cross the line when they result in employment decisions motivated by an applicant’s or employee’s race, sex, or other protected characteristic. There is no separate standard for so-called “reverse” discrimination; the same rule applies regardless of the person affected.2U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work
In practice, a training program, mentorship initiative, or recruitment campaign aimed at increasing diversity is lawful as long as it doesn’t give or deny tangible job benefits based on a protected characteristic. A company can fund scholarships for underrepresented groups, sponsor affinity networks, and set aspirational diversity goals. It runs into trouble when those goals become decision points, and a manager selects or passes over a candidate because of race or sex rather than qualifications. Federal regulations at 29 CFR Part 1608 still describe the circumstances under which voluntary affirmative action plans are considered appropriate under Title VII, including plans to correct effects of prior discrimination or eliminate barriers to equal opportunity.3eCFR. Affirmative Action Appropriate Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended
Rigid quotas have always been prohibited. A numerical goal is not a quota, and employers cannot use one to justify preferential hiring or promotions.4The White House Archives. Office of Federal Contract Compliance The distinction matters. A goal says the company would like 30 percent of new hires to come from underrepresented backgrounds. A quota says the next three hires must come from those backgrounds. The first is aspirational. The second is an unlawful employment practice.
College Admissions After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Ruling
For decades, universities relied on holistic admissions that treated an applicant’s race as a “plus factor” alongside grades, test scores, essays, and extracurriculars. In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found the programs used racial categories that were “overbroad, arbitrary or undefined, or underinclusive” and could not survive strict scrutiny.5Justia. Students for Fair Admissions Inc v President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 US 181 (2023)
The ruling left one narrow opening. Universities cannot use an applicant’s racial identity as a factor, but they are not barred from reading about how race shaped an applicant’s life in an admissions essay, provided the discussion ties to a specific quality, character trait, or ability the student would bring to campus. The distinction is between checking a box and telling a story. A student who writes about overcoming discrimination in a way that reveals resilience or leadership is describing experience, not requesting a preference.
Race-Neutral Alternatives
Since the ruling, institutions have leaned into strategies that pursue diversity without explicitly using race. Common examples include giving weight to socioeconomic background, recruiting heavily from high schools in lower-income areas, expanding financial aid, adopting test-optional policies, and evaluating achievements in the context of the applicant’s school and community rather than on a single national scale. Several states had already banned race-conscious admissions before the Supreme Court did, so these methods aren’t new. They are now the only approach available to every institution.
Government Contracting Set-Asides
Federal and state agencies channel public dollars toward businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals through set-aside contracting programs. The 8(a) Business Development Program, authorized by the Small Business Act, is the best-known example. It provides training, technical assistance, and access to sole-source and competitive set-aside contracts for qualifying small businesses that have operated for at least two years.6U.S. Small Business Administration. 8(a) Business Development Program
To qualify, a business must be at least 51 percent owned and controlled by individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged. Participants in the 8(a) program must apply for SBA certification, while other small disadvantaged businesses can self-certify.7Congress.gov. Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and Minority Business Enterprises: Definitions and Differences in Terms Used by Government Programs
The Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, which governs federal highway and transit contracts, changed significantly in late 2025. Historically, women and members of certain racial or ethnic minority groups received a rebuttable presumption of social and economic disadvantage, meaning the government assumed they qualified unless someone proved otherwise. An interim final rule effective in October 2025 eliminated that presumption. Every applicant now has to provide individualized proof of disadvantage through a personal narrative describing specific instances of economic hardship, systemic barriers, and denied opportunities.8U.S. Department of Transportation. DBE Interim Final Rule
Hiring Benchmarks for Veterans and People with Disabilities
Race- and sex-based affirmative action requirements for federal contractors ended in 2025, but the parallel obligations covering protected veterans and individuals with disabilities survived. They come from separate statutes, not Executive Order 11246, and the Department of Labor has confirmed both remain in effect.9Federal Register. Modifications to the Regulations Implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended
Individuals with Disabilities
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal contractors to set a utilization goal of 7 percent for qualified individuals with disabilities within each job group, or across the entire workforce for contractors with 100 or fewer employees. It is a benchmark for measuring whether recruitment and retention efforts are working, not a quota. Contractors conduct an annual utilization analysis, identify problem areas, and develop action-oriented programs to close gaps.10eCFR. 41 CFR Part 60-741 – Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Individuals with Disabilities
Protected Veterans
The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act requires federal contractors to take affirmative steps to recruit, hire, promote, and retain protected veterans.11U.S. Department of Labor. Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act Contractors set an annual hiring benchmark using one of two methods: adopt the national percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force (currently 5.1 percent), or calculate a custom benchmark using state-level veteran employment data, the contractor’s own applicant and hiring ratios, and recruitment effectiveness assessments.12eCFR. 41 CFR 60-300.45 – Benchmarks for Hiring The regulations say plainly that these benchmarks are not rigid quotas, ceilings, or floors.13U.S. Department of Labor. VEVRAA Hiring Benchmark
What No Longer Counts as an Example
Anyone researching affirmative action examples will encounter descriptions of federal contractor programs that required written affirmative action plans addressing race and sex. Those plans are no longer required. Executive Order 14173, signed January 21, 2025, revoked Executive Order 11246 and gave contractors a 90-day wind-down period. It directed the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to stop holding contractors responsible for race- or sex-based workforce balancing.14Federal Register. Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring-Based Opportunity By July 2025, the Department of Labor had formally rescinded the implementing regulations.15Federal Register. Rescission of Executive Order 11246 Implementing Regulations Title VII’s discrimination protections remain in force, and the surviving examples above are what an employer, applicant, or student is likely to encounter today.