Various executive officials curtailed the enforcement of racial equality. Various government agencies, universities and corporations curtailed racial diversity. During this period, affirmative action grew stronger and more resilient. Affirmative action was shaped by a combination of normative and coercive factors within academic institutions. Universities emphasized the need for racial diversity and equality within their institutions. Civil rights activists and diversity professionals have contributed heavily to the creation and implementation of frameworks that courts later implemented. The growth of affirmative action was countered by the rise in racial conservatism. The achievement of civil rights movements led to the institutionalization of equality in large organizations. Most universities began to implement affirmative action policies voluntarily in order to create racial equality and counter social segregation. Post-secondary education treats white, black and Hispanic students differently, leading to racial inequality within institutions and the wastage of talent (Lipson, 2014).
Scholars have developed theories to explain policy development over the years. Coercive isomorphism emphasizes the influence of external interests on the operations of some institutions. The approach defines bureaucratic institutions as easily influenced by organized interest groups. Another approach emphasizes the influence of law and envisions institutions as complying with legal reforms and judicial decisions. The structure of political institutions and historical contingent political processes has a crucial role in shaping policy development. Another approach states that policy development can be attributed to both voluntary and coerced approaches. The neoinstitutional theory emphasizes the need to evolve organizational policies and practices in order to apply