What are the pros and cons of a minority set-aside plan like Richmond’s? Will it have good consequences?

Does it infringe on anyone’s rights? What conflicting moral principles, ideals, and values are at stake?

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, THE FORMER CAPITAL of the Confederacy, is not the sort of place one would normally associate with controversial efforts at affirmative action. But aware of its legacy of racial discrimination and wanting to do something about it, the Richmond City Council adopted what it called the Minority Business Utilization Plan—a plan that eventually brought it before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The plan, which the council adopted by a 5-to-2 vote after a public hearing, required contractors to whom the city awarded construction contracts to subcontract at least 30 percent of the dollar amount of their contracts to minority business enterprises (MBEs). A business was defined as an MBE if minority group members controlled at least 51 percent of it, and a minority-owned business from anywhere in the United States could qualify as an MBE subcontractor. (The 30 percent set-aside did not apply to construction contracts awarded to minority contractors in the first place.)
Proponents of the set-aside provision relied on a study that indicated that whereas the general population of Richmond was 50 percent African American, only 0.67 percent of the city’s construction contracts had been awarded to minority businesses. Council member Marsh, a proponent of the ordinance, made the following statement: