document_title: Large denominations of United States currency

question_text: what is the largest denomination of us currency

text: Overview and history[edit]

text: Large-denomination currency (i.e., banknotes with a face value of $500 or higher)[1] had been used in the United States since the late 18th century.[2] The first $500 note was issued by the Province of North Carolina, authorized by legislation dated May 10, 1780.[3] Virginia quickly followed suit and authorized the printing of $500 and $1,000 notes on October 16, 1780[4] and $2,000 notes on May 7, 1781.[5] High-denomination treasury notes were issued, for example during the War of 1812 ($1,000 notes authorized by an act dated June 30, 1812).[6] During the American Civil War Confederate currency included $500 and $1,000 notes.[7] During the Federal banknote issuing period (1861 to present), the earliest high-denomination notes included three-year Interest-bearing notes of $500, $1,000, and $5,000, authorized by Congress on July 17, 1861.[8] In total, 11 different types of U.S. currency were issued in high-denomination notes across nearly 20 different series dates. The obverse of United States banknotes generally depict either historical figures, allegorical figures symbolizing significant concepts (e.g., liberty, justice), or a combination of both. The reverse designs range from abstract scroll-work with ornate denomination identifiers to reproductions of historical art works.

text: Public versus institutional use[edit]

text: Series 1934 gold certificates ($100, $1,000, $10,000 and $100,000) were issued after the gold standard was repealed and gold was compulsorily confiscated by order of President Franklin Roosevelt on March 9, 1933 (see United States Executive Order 6102). Thus the series 1934 notes were used only for intra-government (i.e., Federal Reserve Bank) transactions and were not issued to the public. This series was discontinued in 1940. The series 1928 gold certificate reverse was printed in black and green. See history of the United States dollar.

text: Passive retirement[edit]

text: Although they are still technically legal tender in the United States, high-denomination bills were last printed on December 27, 1945, and officially discontinued on July 14, 1969, by the Federal Reserve System,[9] due to 'lack of use'. The $5,000 and $10,000 effectively disappeared well before then.[nb 1]

text: The Federal Reserve began taking high-denomination currency out of circulation (destroying large bills received by banks) in 1969. As of May 30, 2009[update], only 336 $10,000 bills were known to exist; 342 remaining $5,000 bills; and 165,372 remaining $1,000 bills.[10] Due to their rarity, collectors often pay considerably more than the face value of the bills to acquire them. Some are in museums in other parts of the world.

text: For the most part, these bills were used by banks and the Federal government for large financial transactions. This was especially true for gold certificates from 1865 to 1934. However, for the most part, the introduction of an electronic money system has made large-scale cash transactions obsolete. When combined with concerns about counterfeiting and the use of cash in unlawful activities such as the illegal drug trade and money laundering, it is unlikely that the U.S. government will re-issue large denomination currency in the near future, despite the amount of inflation that has occurred since 1969 (a $500 bill is now worth less, in real terms, than a $100 bill was worth in 1969). According to the U.S. Department of Treasury website, "The present denominations of our currency in production are $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50 and $100. The purpose of the United States currency system is to serve the needs of the public and these denominations meet that goal. Neither the Department of the Treasury nor the Federal Reserve System has any plans to change the denominations in use today."[11]

text: High-denomination (HD) banknote issuing data[edit]

text:
Key to high denomination banknote type abbreviations[nb 2]

Abbr
Type
Size[nb 3]
Series dates
High denomination series date
Comments

$500
$1,000
$5,000
$10,000
$100,000

LT
Legal tender
Large
1862–1923
1862
1863
1869
1874
1875
1878
1880
1862
1863
1869
1878
1880
1878
1878
–
[nb 4]

CITN
Compound interest treasury note
Exception
1863–1864
1863
1864
1864
–
–
–

IBN
Interest bearing note
Exception
1861–1865
1861
1863
1864
1865
1861
1863
1864
1865
1861
1863
1864
1865
–
–
[nb 5]

SC
Silver certificate
Large
1878–1923
1878
1880
1878
1880
1891
–
–
–

TN
Treasury note
Large
1890–1891
1891[nb 6]
1890
1891
–
–
–

NBN
National bank note
Large
1865–1875
1865
1875
1865
1875
–
–
–

FRN
Federal reserve note
Large
1914–1918
1918
1918
1918
1918
–

NGBN
National gold bank note
Large
1870–1883
1870[nb 7]
–[nb 8]
–
–
–
[nb 9]

GC
Gold certificate
Large[nb 10]
1865–1922
1865
1870
1875
1882
1922
1865
1870
1875
1882
1907
1922
1865
1870
1882
1888
1865
1870
1875
1882
1888
1900
–

FRN
Federal reserve note
Small
1928–present
1928
1934
1928
1934
1928
1934
1928
1934
–

GC
Gold certificate
Small
1928–1934[nb 11]
1928
1928
1934
1928
1928
1934
1934

text: High-denomination United States banknotes[edit]

text: The National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution contains (among other things) the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) certified proofs and the Treasury Department collection of United States currency. Using a combination of proofs and issued notes, a nearly complete type set of high-denomination currency was compiled. Notably missing are several types of Compound and Interest Bearing Notes. Printed during the early to mid-1860s on very thin paper, these high-denomination notes are virtually non-existent. Their issuance (1861–65) pre-dates the BEP's responsibility for U.S. Currency (1870s), so it is fortunate that any proofs exist in the current archives.

text:
High denomination United States banknotes[nb 12]

Value
Type
Series
Fr.
Image
Portrait/engraving[nb 13]
Comments[nb 14]

000500$500
LT
1862–63
Fr.183c

Gallatin-AlbertAlbert Gallatin
4 known (variety)
7 known (type)[18]

000500$500
LT
1869
Fr.184

Adams-John-QuincyJohn Quincy Adams
(Charles Burt)[19]
Justice
(Stephen A. Schoff)[20]
4 known (only one privately)[21]

000500$500
LT
1874–78
Fr.185b

Mansfield-JosephJoseph Mansfield
(Charles Burt)[19]
Victory
(Charles Burt)[22]

000500$500
LT
1880
Fr.185l

Mansfield-JosephJoseph Mansfield
(Charles Burt)[19]
Victory
(Charles Burt)[22]
5 known (variety)[nb 15]

000500$500
CITN
1864
Fr.194a
Proof

zStandard Bearer-New IronsidesStandard Bearer (left)
(George D. Baldwin)[24]
New Ironsides (right)
(James Smillie)[25]
Unknown[26]

000500$500
SC
1878
Fr.345a

Sumner-CharlesCharles Sumner
(Charles Burt)[19]
Unique (variety and type)[27]

000500$500
SC
1880
Fr.345c

Sumner-CharlesCharles Sumner
(Charles Burt)[19]
5 known (variety)
7 known (type)[27]

000500$500
TN
1891
Fr.379
Proof

Sherman-WilliamWilliam Tecumseh Sherman
None issued[28]

000500$500
NBN
1865–75
Fr.464

zCivilization-Sirius-BurgoyneCivilization (left)
(James D. Smillie)[29]
Sirius arriving in New York (right)
Surrender of General Burgoyne (rev)
(Frederick Girsch)[30]
2 known (variety)
3 known (type)[31]

000500$500
FRN
1918
Fr.1132d

Marshall-JohnJohn Marshall
(Charles Schlecht)[32]
de Soto discovering the Mississippi (rev)
(Frederick Girsch)[30]

000500$500
GC
1863
Fr.1166d
Proof

zEagle-shieldEagle with shield or E Pluribus Unum
(Charles Skinner)[33]
Unknown[34]

000500$500
GC
1870–75
Fr.1166i

Lincoln-AbrahamAbraham Lincoln
(Charles Burt)[19]
Unique[34]

000500$500
GC
1882–1922
Fr.1216a

Lincoln-AbrahamAbraham Lincoln
(Charles Burt)[19]

000500$500
FRN
1928–34
Fr.2200g

McKinley-WilliamWilliam McKinley
(John Eissler)[35]

000500$500
GC
1928
Fr.2407

McKinley-WilliamWilliam McKinley
(John Eissler)[35]

001000$1,000
LT
1862–63
Fr.186e

Morris-RobertRobert Morris
(Charles Schlecht)[32]
Unique (variety)
5 known (type)[36]

001000$1,000
LT
1869
Fr.186f
Proof

Clinton-DeWittDeWitt Clinton
2 known[37]

001000$1,000
LT
1878
Fr.187a

Clinton-DeWittDeWitt Clinton
Columbus in his study
(Henry Gugler)[38]

001000$1,000
LT
1880
Fr.187k

Clinton-DeWittDeWitt Clinton
Columbus in his study
(Henry Gugler)[38]
4 known (variety)
~20–25 known (type)[nb 16]

001000$1,000
IBN
1863
Fr.201
Proof

zJustice-LibertyJustice (left); Liberty (right)
Unknown[39]

001000$1,000
IBN
1863
Fr.206
Proof

zShipsGuerriere and the Constitution (left) and Discovery of the Mississippi by De Soto (right)
Unknown[40]

001000$1,000
SC
1878
Fr.346a
Proof

Marcy-WilliamWilliam Marcy
(Charles Schlecht)[32]
Unknown[41]

001000$1,000
SC
1880
Fr.346d

Marcy-WilliamWilliam Marcy
(Charles Schlecht)[32]
5 known (variety)
5 known (type)[41]

001000$1,000
SC
1891
Fr.346e

Marcy-WilliamWilliam Marcy
(Charles Schlecht)[32]
Liberty
(Charles Burt)[42]
2 known[41]

001000$1,000
TN
1890
Fr.379a

Meade-GeorgeGeorge Meade
(Charles Burt)[19]
5 known (variety)
7 known (type)[43]

001000$1,000
TN
1891
Fr.379c

Meade-GeorgeGeorge Meade
(Charles Burt)[19]
2 known (variety)
3 known (type)[43]

001000$1,000
NBN
1865–75
Fr.465
Proof

zScott-Winfield-Washington-GeorgeScott entering City of Mexico (left)
(Alfred Jones)[44]
United States Capitol (right)
(James Smillie)[25]
Washington resigning his commission (rev)
(Frederick Girsch)[30]
Unknown[45]

001000$1,000
FRN
1918
Fr.1133d

Hamilton-AlexanderAlexander Hamilton
(G.F.C. Smillie)[46]
Eagle (rev)
(Marcus W. Baldwin)[47]

001000$1,000
GC
1863
Fr.1166e
Proof

zEagle-shield-Justice-scalesEagle with shield or E Pluribus Unum
(Charles Skinner)[33]
Justice with scales
Unique[34]

001000$1,000
GC
1870–75
Fr.1166o
Proof

Hamilton-AlexanderAlexander Hamilton
(Charles Burt)[48]
Unique[34]

001000$1,000
GC
1882
Fr.1218g

Hamilton-AlexanderAlexander Hamilton
(G.F.C. Smillie)[46]

001000$1,000
GC
1907–22
Fr.1219

Hamilton-AlexanderAlexander Hamilton

001000$1,000
FRN
1928–34
Fr.2210g

Cleveland-GroverGrover Cleveland
(John Eissler)[35]

001000$1,000
GC
1928
Fr.2408

Cleveland-GroverGrover Cleveland
(John Eissler)[35]

001000$1,000
GC
1934
Fr.2409

Cleveland-GroverGrover Cleveland
(John Eissler)[35]

005000$5,000
LT
1878
Fr.188
Proof

Madison-JamesJames Madison
(Alfred Sealey)[49]
Eagle
(William Chorlton)[50]
All notes have been redeemed, none outstanding[14]

005000$5,000
IBN
1863
Fr.202
Proof

zAltar-of-LibertyThe Altar of Liberty
(Louis Delnoce)[51]
Unknown[39]

005000$5,000
IBN
1865
Fr.212h
Proof

zJustice-New IronsidesJustice (left)
New Ironsides (center)
(James Smillie)[25]

005000$5,000
FRN
1918
Fr.1134d

Madison-JamesJames Madison
(Alfred Sealey)[52]
Washington resigning his commission (rev)
(Louis Delnoce)[51]
Unique (variety)
5 known (type)[nb 17]

005000$5,000
GC
1863
Fr.1166f
Proof

zEagle-Shield-FemaleEagle with shield or E Pluribus Unum
(Charles Skinner)[33]
Female
Unique[34]

005000$5,000
GC
1870–75
Fr.1166k
Proof

Madison-JamesJames Madison
(Alfred Sealey)[48]
Unknown[34]

005000$5,000
GC
1882
Fr.1221a
Proof

Madison-JamesJames Madison
(Alfred Sealey)[54]
Two known[34]

005000$5,000
FRN
1928–34
Fr.2220g

Madison-JamesJames Madison
(Alfred Sealey)[54]

005000$5,000
GC
1928
Fr.2410

Madison-JamesJames Madison

010000$10,000
LT
1878
Fr.189
Proof

Jackson-AndrewAndrew Jackson
(Alfred Sealey)[55]
All notes have been redeemed, none outstanding[14]

010000$10,000
FRN
1918
Fr.1135d

Chase-SalmonSalmon Chase; Embarkation of the Pilgrims (rev)
Unique (variety)
5 known (type)[nb 18]

010000$10,000
GC
1863
Fr.1166g
Proof

zEagle-ShieldEagle with shield or E Pluribus Unum
(Charles Skinner)[33]
Unknown[34]

010000$10,000
GC
1870–75
Fr.1166l
Proof

Jackson-AndrewAndrew Jackson
Unique[34]

010000$10,000
GC
1882
Fr.1223a
Proof

Jackson-AndrewAndrew Jackson
(Alfred Sealey)[54]
Two known[34]

010000$10,000
GC
1900
Fr.1225

Jackson-AndrewAndrew Jackson
(Alfred Sealey)[54]

010000$10,000
FRN
1928–34
Fr.2230b

Chase-SalmonSalmon P. Chase

010000$10,000
GC
1928
Fr.2411

Chase-SalmonSalmon P. Chase

010000$10,000
GC
1934
Fr.2412

Chase-SalmonSalmon P. Chase

100000$100,000
GC
1934
Fr.2413

Wilson-WoodrowWoodrow Wilson
(G.F.C. Smillie)[46]
Reverse
(Frederick Pauling)[56]


document_title: Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations

question_text: when did the bahamas join the commonwealth of nations

root

text: Current members[edit]

text: All dates below are provided by the Commonwealth of Nations Secretariat members list, and population figures are as of 1 January 2018.[8]

tag: p

text:
Country
Joined
Continent
Population[9]
Notes[A]

Antigua and Barbuda ! Antigua and Barbuda[D]
1981-11-011 November 1981
Caribbean
94,195

Australia ! Australia[D]
1931-12-1111 December 1931
Australia
24,772,247
Granted nominal independence (Dominion status) on 1 January 1901. Australia was one of the original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931, although the statute was not adopted in Australia until 1942 (with retroactive effect from 1939).[10] The Australia Act 1986 established specifically, only the State Premier could now advise the Queen on appointment or removal of a State Governor. Nonetheless, the Queen could still exercise any of her powers with respect to the State if she was "personally present" in the State.[11]

Bahamas ! Bahamas[D]
1973-07-1010 July 1973
Caribbean
402,576

Bangladesh ! Bangladesh
1972-04-1818 April 1972[12]
Asia
165,867,307
Declared independence from Pakistan in 1971.[13]

Barbados ! Barbados[D]
1966-11-3030 November 1966
Caribbean
286,618

Belize ! Belize[D]
1981-09-2121 September 1981
North America
379,636

Botswana ! Botswana
1966-09-3030 September 1966
Africa
2,377,831

Brunei ! Brunei
1984-01-011 January 1984
Asia
439,022

Cameroon ! Cameroon
1995-11-1313 November 1995[14]
Africa
24,836,674
Most of the country was the formerly French mandate territory (later UN trust territory) of Cameroun and gained independence from France on 1 January 1960, uniting with the much smaller former British mandate/trust territory of Southern Cameroons on its gaining independence from the United Kingdom on 1 October 1961.

Canada ! Canada[D]
1931-12-1111 December 1931
North America
36,885,861
Granted nominal independence (Dominion status) on 1 July 1867. Canada was the first among the several original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931.[15] Incorporated another original Dominion, Newfoundland, on 31 March 1949.[16] The Canada Act 1982 formally ended the "request and consent" provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931 in relation to Canada, whereby the British parliament had a general power to pass laws extending to Canada at its own request.

Cyprus ! Cyprus[E]
1961-03-1313 March 1961[17]
Eurasia
1,197,667
Gained independence from the United Kingdom on 16 August 1960.

Dominica ! Dominica
1978-11-033 November 1978
Caribbean
72,975

Fiji ! Fiji[B]
1970-10-1010 October 1970
Oceania
909,024
Left in 1987; rejoined in 1997; suspended on 6 June 2000;[18] suspension lifted on 20 December 2001;[19] again suspended on 8 December 2006 because of the 2006 Fijian coup d'état.[20][21] Suspension lifted on 26 September 2014.

The Gambia ! The Gambia
1965-02-1818 February 1965
Africa
2,155,958
Withdrew on 3 October 2013 citing "neo-colonialism".[22][23] Following the election of Adama Barrow as President of Gambia in 2016, it submitted an application to re-join the Commonwealth on 22 January 2018,[24] and rejoined on 8 February 2018.[25]

Ghana ! Ghana
1957-03-066 March 1957
Africa
29,088,849

Grenada ! Grenada[D]
1974-02-077 February 1974
Caribbean
107,894

Guyana ! Guyana
1966-05-2626 May 1966
South America
773,808

India ! India
1947-08-1515 August 1947
Asia
1,353,014,094
Incorporated former French India (Chandannagar from 2 May 1950 and Puducherry, Karaikal, Yanam and Mahé from 1 November 1954), former Portuguese India (Goa, Daman and Diu from 19 December 1961 and Dadra and Nagar Haveli formally from 1961) and Sikkim (from 16 May 1975).

Jamaica ! Jamaica[D]
1962-08-066 August 1962
Caribbean
2,819,888

Kenya ! Kenya
1963-12-1212 December 1963
Africa
49,167,382

Kiribati ! Kiribati
1979-07-1212 July 1979
Oceania
117,636

Lesotho ! Lesotho
1966-10-044 October 1966
Africa
2,199,492

Malawi ! Malawi
1964-07-066 July 1964
Africa
18,558,768

Malaysia ! Malaysia
1957-08-3131 August 1957[26][27]
Asia
31,505,208
Joined as the Federation of Malaya in 1957; reformed as Malaysia on 16 September 1963 with its federation with Singapore (which became a separate state on 9 August 1965), North Borneo, and Sarawak.[28]

Malta ! Malta
1964-09-2121 September 1964
Europe
422,212

Mauritius ! Mauritius
1968-03-1212 March 1968
Africa
1,286,240

Mozambique ! Mozambique
1995-11-1313 November 1995[29]
Africa
29,977,238
Gained independence from Portugal on 26 June 1975. The first country to be admitted to the Commonwealth without any former colonial or constitutional links with the United Kingdom.[30]

Namibia ! Namibia
1990-03-2121 March 1990
Africa
2,600,857
Gained independence from South Africa.[31] Includes Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands transferred by South Africa at midnight 28 February 1994.

Nauru ! Nauru[B]
1968-11-01†1 November 1968
Oceania
10,387
Gained independence on 31 January 1968 from joint trusteeship of Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom. A special member from 1 November 1968 until 1 May 1999, when it became a full member,[32] before reverting to special status in January 2006.[33] A full member again since June 2011.[34]

New Zealand ! New Zealand[D]
1931-12-1111 December 1931
Oceania
4,609,755
Granted nominal independence (Dominion status) on 26 September 1907. One of the original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931, although the Statute was not adopted in New Zealand until 1947.[35] Removed final links with the British Parliament in 1986.

Nigeria ! Nigeria
1960-10-011 October 1960
Africa
194,615,054
Incorporated the former British mandate/trust territory of Northern Cameroons on 31 May 1961. Suspended in 1995, suspension lifted in 1999.[36]

Pakistan ! Pakistan
1947-08-1414 August 1947[C]
Asia
199,031,265
Includes the city of Gwadar, transferred from Muscat and Oman on 8 September 1958. Included Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan) until 1971.[13] Left Commonwealth in 1972, rejoined 1989; suspended in 1999, suspension lifted in 2004; again suspended in 2007,[37] suspension lifted in 2008.[38]

Papua New Guinea ! Papua New Guinea[D]
1975-09-1616 September 1975
Australia
8,034,630
Gained independence from Australia.

Rwanda ! Rwanda
2009-11-2929 November 2009[6]
Africa
12,322,920
Gained independence from Belgium on 1 July 1962. The second country (after Mozambique) to be admitted to the Commonwealth without any former colonial or constitutional links with the United Kingdom.[30] Unlike Mozambique, has adopted English as an official language since joining.

Saint Kitts and Nevis ! Saint Kitts and Nevis[B][D]
1983-09-1919 September 1983
Caribbean
56,632

Saint Lucia ! Saint Lucia[D]
1979-02-2222 February 1979
Caribbean
189,000

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ! Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[D]
1979-10-2727 October 1979
Caribbean
109,501
A special member from 27 October 1979 until 1 June 1985.

Samoa ! Samoa[B]
1970-08-2828 August 1970
Oceania
196,954
Gained independence from New Zealand on 1 January 1962. Joined as Western Samoa, subsequently changing its name to Samoa on 4 July 1997.[39]

Seychelles ! Seychelles
1976-06-2929 June 1976
Africa
98,248

Sierra Leone ! Sierra Leone
1961-04-2727 April 1961
Africa
6,818,117

Singapore ! Singapore[B]
1965-10-15†9 August 1966 (effective from 9 August 1965)[40]
Asia
5,889,117
Gained independence from the United Kingdom and joined Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963. Became independent on 9 August 1965.[41]

Solomon Islands ! Solomon Islands[D]
1978-07-077 July 1978
Oceania
614,497

South Africa ! South Africa
1931-12-1111 December 1931
Africa
56,007,479
Granted nominal independence (Dominion status) on 31 May 1910. One of the original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Left on 31 May 1961; rejoined 1 June 1994.[42]

Sri Lanka ! Sri Lanka
1948-02-044 February 1948
Asia
20,979,811
Joined as the Dominion of Ceylon, subsequently changing its name in 1972. Became a republic in 1972 and severed final ties with Britain.

eSwatsi ! Swaziland
1968-09-066 September 1968
Africa
1,336,933

Tanzania ! Tanzania
1961-12-099 December 1961
Africa
57,790,062
Joined as Tanganyika and later Zanzibar, which subsequently merged to form Tanzania on 26 April 1964.[43]

Tonga ! Tonga
1970-06-044 June 1970
Oceania
107,228

Trinidad and Tobago ! Trinidad and Tobago
1962-08-3131 August 1962
Caribbean
1,376,801

Tuvalu ! Tuvalu[B][D]
1978-10-011 October 1978
Oceania
10,116
A special member from 1 October 1978 until 1 September 2000.[44]

Uganda ! Uganda
1962-10-099 October 1962
Africa
42,288,962

United Kingdom ! United Kingdom
1931-12-1111 December 1931
Europe
65,746,853
The Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the Statute of Westminster 1931.

Vanuatu ! Vanuatu[B]
1980-07-3030 July 1980
Oceania
279,953
Gained independence from joint rule of France and United Kingdom.

Zambia ! Zambia
1964-10-2424 October 1964
Africa
17,470,471

tag: table

text:
^ A. Unless otherwise noted, independence was gained from the United Kingdom on the date (shown in column 2) of joining the Commonwealth.
^ B. Not a member of the Commonwealth Foundation.
^ C. Though Pakistan celebrates 14 August 1947 as its independence day, independence was officially granted at midnight, 15 August 1947. Therefore, its date of joining the Commonwealth would be 15 August 1947.
^ D. Commonwealth realms, recognising Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state since the day of their independence, distinctly from her being the sovereign of the United Kingdom.
^ E. Geopolitically part of Europe, but geographically part of Asia.

text: Former members[edit]

text:
Country
Joined
Continent
Left
Notes

Ireland ! Ireland
1931-12-1111 December 1931
Europe
1949-04-1818 April 1949
One of the original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931.[16] Withdrew after passing the Republic of Ireland Act in 1948, accepted by the United Kingdom in 1949 Ireland Act 1949[13].

Maldives ! Maldives
1982-07-099 July 1982
Asia
2016-10-1313 October 2016
Gained independence from the United Kingdom on 26 July 1965.[45] A special member from 9 July 1982 until 20 July 1985.[46] Announced on 13 October 2016 that it has withdrawn from the Commonwealth.[47][48]

Zimbabwe ! Zimbabwe
1980-10-011 October 1980
Africa
2003-12-077 December 2003
Suspended on 19 March 2002.[19] Withdrew voluntarily on 7 December 2003.[49]

text: Dissolved members[edit]

text:
Former country
Joined
Continent
Dissolved
Rejoined as part of
Notes

Malaya ! Malaya
1957-08-3131 August 1957
Asia
1963-07-3131 July 1963[27]
Malaysia ! Malaysia
Reformed as the Federation of Malaysia with Singapore (became a separate member in 1965), Sabah, and Sarawak.

Newfoundland ! Newfoundland
1931-12-1111 December 1931
North America
1934-02-1631 March 1949
Canada ! Canada
One of the original Dominions at the time of the Statute of Westminster 1931. Government suspended on 16 February 1934, merged into Canada on 31 March 1949.[16]

Tanganyika ! Tanganyika
1961-12-099 December 1961
Africa
1964-04-2626 April 1964
Tanzania ! Tanzania
The two countries merged to form Tanzania on 26 April 1964.[43]

Zanzibar ! Zanzibar
1963-12-1010 December 1963

text: Prospective members[edit]

text:
Country
Applied
Continent
Population
Notes

Somaliland ! Somaliland
2009[50]
Africa
~3,500,000[F]
Somaliland is an unrecognised self-declared sovereign state internationally recognised as part of Somalia. It has applied to join the Commonwealth under observer status.[50] Its borders approximate to those of British Somaliland, which was a protectorate from 1884 to 1960.

South Sudan ! South Sudan
2011[51]
Africa
13,670,642
Gained independence from Britain as part of Sudan in 1956. Gained independence from Sudan in 2011.[52]

Sudan ! Sudan
2009[53]
Africa
42,425,989
Sudan was a condominium of the United Kingdom and Egypt known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, but in practice the structure of the Condominium ensured full British control over the Sudan until its independence in 1956. Sudan has expressed an interest in joining the Commonwealth.[54]

Suriname ! Suriname[55]
2012
South America
555,934
English colony of Willoughbyland from 1650 to 1667 and controlled by the British from 1799 to 1816. Subsequently, a Dutch colony. In 2012, Suriname announced plans to join the Commonwealth[56] and the British government has made it a priority to provide guidance to Suriname in applying for Commonwealth membership.[57]

Burundi ! Burundi[58]
2013
Africa
10,524,117

text: ^ F. The population figure is based on 2014 estimates.

text: Other states which have expressed an interest in joining the Commonwealth over the years or states which may be eligible to join the Commonwealth include Algeria, Bahrain[54], Cambodia, Egypt[54], Eritrea[54], Israel[59], Libya[54], Madagascar, Palestine, United States[54] and Yemen.[60][61]


document_title: Affirmative action

question_text: who was required to have affirmative action programs

question_tokens: who was required to have affirmative action programs

text: Affirmative action

text: Origins[edit]

text: The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925",[9] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."[10] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]

text: Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[12]

text: It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated "minority groups" within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[13]

text: The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is that it helps to compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[14] and to address existing discrimination.[15]

text: Women[edit]

text: Several different studies investigated the effect of affirmative action on women. Kurtulus (2012) in her review of affirmative action and the occupational advancement of minorities and women during 1973-2003 showed that the effect of affirmative action on advancing black, Hispanic, and white women into management, professional, and technical occupations occurred primarily during the 1970s and early 1980s. During this period, contractors grew their shares of these groups more rapidly than noncontractors because of the implementation of affirmative action. But the positive effect of affirmative action vanished entirely in the late 1980s, which Kurtulus says may be due to the slowdown into advanced occupation for women and minorities because of the political shift of affirmative action that started by President Reagan. Becoming a federal contractor increased white women's share of professional occupations by 0.183 percentage points, or 7.3 percent, on average during these three decades, and increased black women's share by 0.052 percentage points (or by 3.9 percent). Becoming a federal contractor also increased Hispanic women's and black men's share of technical occupations on average by 0.058 percent and 0.109 percentage points respectively (or by 7.7 and 4.2 percent). These represent a substantial contribution of affirmative action to overall trends in the occupational advancement of women and minorities over the three decades under the study.[16] A reanalysis of multiple scholarly studies, especially in Asia, considered the impact of four primary factors on support for affirmative action programs for women: gender; political factors; psychological factors; and social structure. Kim and Kim (2014) found that, "Affirmative action both corrects existing unfair treatment and gives women equal opportunity in the future."[17]

text: Quotas[edit]

text: Law regarding quotas and affirmative action varies widely from nation to nation. Caste-based quotas are used in India for reservation. However, they are illegal in the United States, where no employer, university, or other entity may create a set number required for each race.

text: In 2012, the European Union Commission approved a plan for women to constitute 40% of non-executive board directorships in large listed companies in Europe by 2020.[18] In Sweden, the Supreme Court has ruled that "affirmative action" ethnic quotas in universities are discrimination and hence unlawful. It said that the requirements for the intake should be the same for all. The justice minister said that the decision left no room for uncertainty.[19]

text: National approaches[edit]

text: In some countries that have laws on racial equality, affirmative action is rendered illegal because it does not treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", in hopes that it is effective against discrimination without engaging in reverse discrimination.

text: In such countries, the focus tends to be on ensuring equal opportunity and, for example, targeted advertising campaigns to encourage ethnic minority candidates to join the police force. This is sometimes described as "positive action."

text: Africa[edit]

text: South Africa[edit]

text: Apartheid[edit]

text: The apartheid government, as a matter of state policy, favoured white-owned, especially Afrikaner-owned companies. The aforementioned policies achieved the desired results, but in the process they marginalised and excluded black people. Skilled jobs were also reserved for white people, and blacks were largely used as unskilled labour, enforced by legislation including the Mines and Works Act, the Job Reservations Act, the Native Building Workers Act, the Apprenticeship Act and the Bantu Education Act,[20] creating and extending the "colour bar" in South African labour.[21] Then the whites successfully persuaded the government to enact laws that highly restricted the blacks' employment opportunities.

text: Since the 1960s the apartheid laws had been weakened. Consequently, from 1975 to 1990 the real wages of black manufacturing workers rose by 50%, while those of whites rose by 1%.[22]

text: The economic and politically structured society during the apartheid ultimately caused disparities in employment, occupation and income within labour markets, which provided advantages to certain groups and characteristics of people. This in due course was the motivation to introduce affirmative action in South Africa, following the end of apartheid.[23]

text: Post-apartheid – the Employment Equity Act[edit]

text: Following the transition to democracy in 1994, the African National Congress-led government chose to implement affirmative action legislation to correct previous imbalances (a policy known as employment equity). As such, all employers were compelled by law to employ previously disenfranchised groups (blacks, Indians, and Coloureds). A related, but distinct concept is Black Economic Empowerment.[24]

text: The Employment Equity Act and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act aim to promote and achieve equality in the workplace (in South Africa termed "equity"), by advancing people from designated groups. The designated groups who are to be advanced include all people of colour, women (including white women) and people with disabilities (including white people). Employment Equity legislation requires companies employing more than 50 people to design and implement plans to improve the representativity of workforce demographics, and report them to the Department of Labour.[25]

text: Employment Equity also forms part of a company's Black Economic Empowerment scorecard: in a relatively complex scoring system, which allows for some flexibility in the manner in which each company meets its legal commitments, each company is required to meet minimum requirements in terms of representation by previously disadvantaged groups. The matters covered include equity ownership, representation at employee and management level (up to board of director level), procurement from black-owned businesses and social investment programs, amongst others.

text: The policies of Employment Equity and, particularly, Black Economic empowerment have been criticised both by those who view them as discriminatory against white people, and by those who view them as ineffectual.[26][27][28][29][30]

text: These laws cause disproportionally high costs for small companies and reduce economic growth and employment.[22] The laws may give the black middle-class some advantage but can make the worse-off blacks even poorer.[22] Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that in principle blacks may be favored, but in practice this should not lead to unfair discrimination against the others.[22][22]

text: Affirmative Action Purpose[edit]

text: As mentioned previously affirmative action was introduced through the Employment Equality Act, 55 in 1998, 4 years after the end of apartheid. This act was passed to promote the constitutional right of equality and exercise true democracy. This idea was to eliminate unfair discrimination in employment, to ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects of discrimination, to achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of our people, to promote economic development and efficiency in the workforce and to give effects to the obligations of the Republic as a member of the International Labour Organisation.[23][31]

text: Many embraced the Act; however some concluded that the act contradicted itself. The act eliminates unfair discrimination in certain sectors of the national labour market by imposing similar constraints on another.[23]

text: With the introduction of Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) rose additionally in South Africa. The BEE was not a moral initiative to redress the wrongs of the past but to promote growth and strategies that aim to realize a country's full potential. The idea was targeting the weakest link in economics, which was inequality and which would help develop the economy. This is evident in the statement by the Department of Trade and Industry, "As such, this strategy stresses a BEE process that is associated with growth, development and enterprise development, and not merely the redistribution of existing wealth".[32][33] Similarities between the BEE and affirmative action are apparent; however there is a difference. BEE focuses more on employment equality rather than taking wealth away from the skilled white labourers.[32]

text: The main goal of Affirmative Action is for a country to reach its full potential. This occurrence would result in a completely diverse workforce in economic and social sectors. Thus broadening the economic base and therefore stimulating economic growth.[34]

text: Outcomes[edit]

text: This section is written in the style of a debate rather than an encyclopedic summary. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and make it more accessible to a general audience. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Once applied within the country, many different outcomes arose, some positive and some negative. This depended on the approach to and the view of The Employment Equality Act and affirmative action.

text: Positive: Pre-Democracy, the apartheid governments discriminated against non-white races, so with affirmative action, the country started to redress past discriminations. Affirmative action also focused on combating structural racism and racial inequality, hoping to maximize diversity in all levels of society and sectors.[35] Achieving this would elevate the status of the perpetual underclass and to restore equal access to the benefits of society.[23]

text: Negative: Though affirmative action had its positives, negatives arose. A quota system was implemented, which aimed to achieve targets of diversity in a work force. This target affected the hiring and level of skill in the work force, ultimately affecting the free market.[34][35] Affirmative action created marginalization for coloured and Indian races in South Africa, as well as developing and aiding the middle and elite classes, leaving the lower class behind. This created a bigger gap between the lower and middle class, which led to class struggles and a greater segregation.[31][35] Entitlement began to arise with the growth of the middle and elite classes, as well as race entitlement. Many believe that affirmative action is discrimination in reverse. With all these negatives, much talent started to leave the country.[23] Many negative consequences of affirmative action, specifically the quota system, drive skilled labour away, resulting in bad economic growth. This is due to very few international companies wanting to invest in South Africa.[35]

text: With these negative and positive outcomes of affirmative action, it is evident that the concept of affirmative action is continually evolving.[35]

text: Asia[edit]

text: China[edit]

text: There is affirmative action in education for minority nationalities. This may equate to lowering minimum requirements for the National University Entrance Examination, which is a mandatory exam for all students to enter university.[36][37] Some universities set quotas for minority (non-Han) student intake.[38] Further, minority students enrolled in ethnic minority-oriented specialties (e.g. language and literature programs) are provided with scholarships and/or pay no tuition, and are granted a monthly stipend.

text: Israel[edit]

text: A class-based affirmative action policy was incorporated into the admission practices of the four most selective universities in Israel during the early to mid-2000s. In evaluating the eligibility of applicants, neither their financial status nor their national or ethnic origins are considered. The emphasis, rather, is on structural disadvantages, especially neighborhood socioeconomic status and high school rigor, although several individual hardships are also weighed. This policy made the four institutions, especially the echelons at the most selective departments, more diverse than they otherwise would have been. The rise in geographic, economic and demographic diversity of a student population suggests that the plan's focus on structural determinants of disadvantage yields broad diversity dividends.[39]

text: Israeli citizens who are; Women, Arabs, Blacks or people with disabilities are entitled to Affirmative Action in the civil service employment.[40] Also Israeli citizens who are Arabs, Blacks or people with disabilities are entitled for Affirmative Actions are entitled for full University tuition scholarships by the state.[41]

text: In her study of gender politics in Israel, Dafna Izraeli showed that the paradox of affirmative action for women directors is that the legitimation for legislating their inclusion on boards also resulted in the exclusion of women's interested as a legitimate issue on the boards' agendas. "The new culture of the men's club is seductive token women are under the pressure to become "social males" and prove that their competence as directors, meaning that they are not significantly different from men. In the negotiation for status as worthy peers, emphasizing gender signals that a woman is an "imposter", someone who does not rightfully belong in the position she is claiming to fill." And once affirmative action for women is fulfilled, and then affirmative action shares the element, as Izraeli put it, the "group equality discourse," making it easier for other groups to claim for a fairer distribution of resources. This suggests that affirmative action can have applications for different groups in Israel.[42]

text: India[edit]

text: Reservation in India is a form of affirmative action designed to improve the well-being of backward and under-represented communities defined primarily by their caste. Reservation in India favors the majority of the population with more than 70% of Indian Citizens eligible for reservation benefits. [43] 49.5% of all college admissions and government jobs are reserved for this 70% majority but they can also compete for the remaining 51.5% unreserved quota as well [44]. Further, only 0.6% of scholarships disbursed by the government were given on the basis of merit, with over 94% of the scholarships given on basis of Reservation instead [45].

text: Malaysia[edit]

text: The Malaysian New Economic Policy or NEP serves as a form of affirmative action. Malaysia provides affirmative action to the majority because in general, the Malays have lower incomes than the Chinese, who have traditionally been involved in businesses and industries, but who were also general migrant workers.[46] Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country, with Malays making up the majority of close to 52% of the population. About 23% of the population are Malaysians of Chinese descent, while Malaysians of Indian descent comprise about 7% of the population.

text: (See also Bumiputra) The mean income for Malays, Chinese and Indians in 1957/58 were 134, 288 and 228 respectively. In 1967/68 it was 154, 329 and 245, and in 1970 it was 170, 390 and 300. Mean income disparity ratio for Chinese/Malays rose from 2.1 in 1957/58 to 2.3 in 1970, whereas for Indians/Malays the disparity ratio also rose from 1.7 to 1.8 in the same period.[47] The Malays viewed Independence as restoring their proper place in their own country's socioeconomic order while the non-Malays were opposing government efforts to advance Malay political primacy and economic welfare.

text: Sri Lanka[edit]

text: In 1981 the Standardization policy of Sri Lankan universities was introduced as an affirmative action program for students from areas which had lower rates of education than other areas due to missionary activity in the north and east, which essentially were the Tamil areas. Successive governments cultivated a historical myth after the colonial powers had left that the British had practised communal favouritism towards Christians and the minority Tamil community for the entire 200 years they had controlled Sri Lanka. However, the Sinhalese in fact benefitted from trade and plantation cultivations over the rest of the other groups and their language and culture as well as the religion of Buddhism was fostered and made into mediums for schools over the Tamil language, which did not have the same treatment and Tamils learned English instead as there was no medium for Tamil until near independence. Tamils' knowledge of English and education came from the very American missionary activity by overseas Christians that the British were concerned will anger the Sinhalese and destroy their trading relationships, so they sent them to the Tamil areas instead to teach, thinking it would have no consequences and due to their small numbers. The British sending the missionaries to the north and east was for the protection of the Sinhalese and in fact showed favouritism to the majority group instead of the minorities to maintain trading relationships and benefits from them. The Tamils, out of this random benefit from learning English and basic education excelled and flourished and were able to take many civil service jobs to the chagrin of the Sinhalese. The myth of Divide and Rule is untrue. The 'policy of standardisation' was typical of affirmative action policies, in that it required drastically lower standards for Sinhalese students than for the more academic Tamils who had to get about ten more marks to enter into universities. The policy, were it not implemented would have prevented the civil wars ahead as the policies had no basis and in fact is an example of discrimination against the Tamil ethnic group.[48]

text: Taiwan[edit]

text: A 2004 legislation requires that, for a firm with 100 employees or more wishing to compete for government contracts, at least 1 per cent of its employees must be Taiwanese aborigines.[49] Ministry of Education and Council of Aboriginal Affairs announced in 2002 that Taiwanese Aboriginal students would have their high-school or undergraduate entrance exams boosted by 33% for demonstrating some knowledge of their tribal language and culture.[50] The percentage of boost have been revised several times, and the latest percentage is 35% in 2013.[51]

text: Europe[edit]

text: Finland[edit]

text: In certain university education programs, including legal and medical education, there are quotas for persons who reach a certain standard of skills in the Swedish language; for students admitted in these quotas, the education is partially arranged in Swedish.[52][53] The purpose of the quotas is to guarantee that a sufficient number of professionals with skills in Swedish are educated for nationwide needs.[52] The quota system has met with criticism from the Finnish speaking majority, some of whom consider the system unfair. In addition to these linguistic quotas, women may get preferential treatment in recruitment for certain public sector jobs if there is a gender imbalance in the field.

text: France[edit]

text: No distinctions based on race, religion or sex are allowed under the 1958 French Constitution.[54] Since the 1980s, a French version of affirmative action based on neighborhood is in place for primary and secondary education. Some schools, in neighborhoods labeled "Priority Education Zones", are granted more funds than the others. Students from these schools also benefit from special policies in certain institutions (such as Sciences Po).[55]

text: The French Ministry of Defence tried in 1990 to make it easier for young French soldiers of North-African descent to be promoted in rank and obtain driving licenses. After a strong protest by a young French lieutenant[56] in the Ministry of Defence newspaper (Armées d'aujourd'hui), the driving license and rank plan was cancelled. After the Sarkozy election, a new attempt in favour of Arab-French students was made, but Sarkozy did not gain enough political support to change the French constitution. However, some French schools do implement affirmative action in that they are obligated to take a certain number of students from impoverished families.[57]

text: Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All appointments of males as directors will be invalid as long as the quota is not met, and monetary penalties may apply for other directors.[58]

text: Germany[edit]

text: Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job; moreover, the disabled should be preferred to non-disabled people. This is typical for all positions in state and university service as of 2007[update], typically using the phrase "We try to increase diversity in this line of work". In recent years, there has been a long public debate about whether to issue programs that would grant women a privileged access to jobs in order to fight discrimination. Germany's Left Party brought up the discussion about affirmative action in Germany's school system. According to Stefan Zillich, quotas should be "a possibility" to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a Gymnasium (University-preparatory school).[59] Headmasters of Gymnasien have objected, saying that this type of policy would "be a disservice" to poor children.[60]

text: Norway[edit]

text: In all public stock companies (ASA) boards, either gender should be represented by at least 40%.[61] This affects roughly 400 companies of over 300,000 in total.[62]

text: Seierstad & Opsahl in their study of the effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in Norway found that there are few boards chaired by a woman, from the beginning of the implementation of affirmative action policy period to August 2009, the proportion of boards led by a woman has increased from 3.4% to 4.3%. This suggests that the law has had a marginal effect on the sex of the chair and the boards remain internally segregated. Although at the beginning of our observation period, only 7 of 91 prominent directors were women. The gender balance among prominent directors has changed considerable through the period, and at the end of the period, 107 women and 117 men were prominent directors. Interestingly, by applying more restrictive definitions of prominence, the proportion of directors who are women generally increases. If only considering directors with at least three directorships, 61.4% of them are women. When considering directors with seven or more directorships, all of them are women. Thus, affirmative action increase the female population in the director position.[63]

text: Romania[edit]

text: Romani people are allocated quotas for access to public schools and state universities.[64]

text: Russia[edit]

text: Quota systems existed in the USSR for various social groups including ethnic minorities (as a compensation of their "cultural backwardness"), women and factory workers.

text: Quotas for access to university education, offices in the Soviet system and the Communist Party existed: for example, the position of First Secretary of a Soviet Republic's (or Autonomous Republic's) Party Committee was always filled by a representative of this republic's "titular ethnicity".

text: Modern Russia retains this system partially. Quotas are abolished, however, preferences for some ethnic minorities and inhabitants of certain territories[65] remain.

text: Slovakia[edit]

text: The Constitutional Court declared in October 2005 that affirmative action i.e. "providing advantages for people of an ethnic or racial minority group" as being against its Constitution.[66]

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: In the UK, any discrimination, quotas or favouritism due to sex, race and ethnicity among other "protected characteristics" is generally illegal for any reason in education, employment, during commercial transactions, in a private club or association, and while using public services.[6][7][8] The Equality Act 2010 established the principles of equality and their implementation in the UK.[67]

text: Specific exemptions include:

text:
Part of the Northern Ireland Peace Process, the Good Friday Agreement and the resulting Patten report required the Police Service of Northern Ireland to recruit 50% of numbers from the Catholic community and 50% from the Protestant and other communities, in order to reduce any possible bias towards Protestants. This was later referred to as the '50:50' measure.[68] (See also Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland.)
The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 allowed the use of all-women shortlists to select more women as election candidates.[69]

tag: ul

text: North America[edit]

text: Canada[edit]

text: The equality section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly permits affirmative action type legislation, although the Charter does not require legislation that gives preferential treatment. Subsection 2 of Section 15 states that the equality provisions do "not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

text: The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples, and visible minorities. Less than one-third of Canadian Universities offer alternative admission requirements for students of aboriginal descent. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.[70]

text: United States[edit]

text: The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s in the United States, as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, with the concept later expanded to address gender discrimination.[11] Affirmative action was first created from Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required that government employers "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[71][72]

text: On 24 September 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, thereby replacing Executive Order 10925 and affirming Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[3] Affirmative action was extended to women by Executive Order 11375 which amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, by adding "sex" to the list of protected categories. In the U.S. affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[15][73] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[74]

text: Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[75] and has been questioned upon its constitutional legitimacy. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in higher education (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) permitted educational institutions to consider race as a factor when admitting students.[5] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under-represented and typically have lower living conditions. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas to increase the number of minorities and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[76]

text: Oceania[edit]

text: New Zealand[edit]

text: Individuals of Māori or other Polynesian descent are often afforded improved access to university courses, or have scholarships earmarked specifically for them.[6] Affirmative action is provided for under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993[77] and section 19(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[78]

text: South America[edit]

text: Brazil[edit]

text: Some Brazilian universities (state and federal) have created systems of preferred admissions (quotas) for racial minorities (blacks and Amerindians), the poor and people with disabilities. There are also quotas of up to 20% of vacancies reserved for people with disabilities in the civil public services.[79] The Democrats party, accusing the board of directors of the University of Brasília of "Nazism", appealed to the Supreme Federal Court against the constitutionality of the quotas the University reserves for minorities.[80] The Supreme Court unanimously approved their constitutionality on 26 April 2012.[81]

text: International organizations[edit]

text: United Nations[edit]

text: The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination stipulates (in Article 2.2) that affirmative action programs may be required of countries that ratified the convention, in order to rectify systematic discrimination. It states, however, that such programs "shall in no case entail as a consequence the maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."[82]

text: The United Nations Human Rights Committee states that "the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in order to diminish or eliminate conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination prohibited by the Covenant. For example, in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time to the part of the population concerned certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination, in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant."[82]

text: Support[edit]

text: The principle of affirmative action is to promote societal equality through the preferential treatment of socioeconomically disadvantaged people. Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[83] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve a range of goals: bridging inequalities in employment and pay; increasing access to education; enriching state, institutional, and professional leadership with the full spectrum of society; redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances, in particular addressing the apparent social imbalance left in the wake of slavery and slave laws.

text: A 2017 study found that affirmative action in the United States "increases the black share of employees over time: in 5 years after an establishment is first regulated, the black share of employees increases by an average of 0.8 percentage points. Strikingly, the black share continues to grow at a similar pace even after an establishment is deregulated. One could argue that this persistence is driven in part by affirmative action inducing employers to improve their methods for screening potential hires."[84]

text: Polls[edit]

text: The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (May 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: According to a poll taken by USA Today in 2005, the majority of Americans support affirmative action for women, while views on minority groups were more split.[85] Men are only slightly more likely to support affirmative action for women; though a majority of both do.[85] However, a slight majority of Americans do believe that affirmative action goes beyond ensuring access and goes into the realm of preferential treatment.[85] More recently, a Quinnipiac poll from June 2009 finds that 55% of Americans feel that affirmative action in general should be discontinued, though 55% support it for people with disabilities.[86] A Gallup poll from 2005 showed that 72% of black Americans and 44% of white Americans supported racial affirmative action (with 21% and 49% opposing), with support and opposition among Hispanics falling between those of blacks and whites. Support among blacks, unlike among whites, had almost no correlation with political affiliation.[87]

text: A 2009 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute survey found 65% of American voters opposed the application of affirmative action to gay people, with 27% indicating they supported it.[88]

text: A Leger poll taken in 2010 found 59% of Canadians opposed considering race, gender, or ethnicity when hiring for government jobs.[89]

text: A 2014 Pew Research Center poll found that 63% of Americans thought affirmative action programs aimed at increasing minority representation on college campuses were "a good thing", compared to 30% who thought they were "a bad thing".[90] The following year, Gallup released a poll showing that 67% of Americans supported affirmative action programs aimed at increasing female representation, compared to 58% who supported such programs aimed at increasing the representation of racial minorities.[91]

text: Criticism[edit]

text: Opponents of affirmative action such as George Sher believe that affirmative action devalues the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action counterproductive.[92] Opponents,[93] who sometimes say that affirmative action is reverse discrimination, further claim that affirmative action has undesirable side-effects in addition to failing to achieve its goals. They argue that it hinders reconciliation, replaces old wrongs with new wrongs, undermines the achievements of minorities, and encourages individuals to identify themselves as disadvantaged, even if they are not. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups at the expense of the least fortunate within majority groups (such as lower-class white people).[94]

text: Opponents claim that cases such as Fisher v. University of Texas are few of the many examples that show how reverse discrimination can take place. In 2008, Abigail Fisher, who is a native to Texas, sued the University of Texas at Austin, claiming that she was denied admission to the university because she was "white". The students that are of top 10% in the applicants of the University of Texas are admitted and there are students that compete to barely make it in on the threshold, such as Abigail Fisher. In such cases, race becomes an important factor in deciding who gets admitted to the university, and Fisher argued that discriminating and accepting students according to their race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal protection of the law and the citizen's privilege as a citizen of United States. The constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions is now back before the Supreme Court in the case Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).[95]

text: American economist and social and political commentator, Thomas Sowell identified some negative results of race-based affirmative action in his book, Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study.[96] Sowell writes that affirmative action policies encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups (i.e., primary beneficiaries of affirmative action) to take advantage of group preference policies; that they tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g., upper and middle class blacks), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor whites or Asians); that they reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole; and that they increase animosity toward preferred groups.

text: Mismatching[edit]

text: Mismatching is the term given to the negative effect that affirmative action has when it places a student into a college that is too difficult for him or her. For example, according to the theory, in the absence of affirmative action, a student will be admitted to a college that matches his or her academic ability and have a good chance of graduating. However, according to the mismatching theory, affirmative action often places a student into a college that is too difficult, and this increases the student's chance of dropping out. Thus, according to the theory, affirmative action hurts its intended beneficiaries, because it increases their dropout rate.[97][98][99]

text: Evidence in support of the mismatching theory was presented by Gail Heriot, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a 24 August 2007 article published in the Wall Street Journal. The article reported on a 2004 study that was conducted by UCLA law professor Richard Sander and published in the Stanford Law Review. The study concluded that there were 7.9% fewer black attorneys than there would have been if there had been no affirmative action. The study was titled, "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools."[100] The article also states that because of mismatching, blacks are more likely to drop out of law school and fail bar exams.[101]

text: Sander's paper on mismatching has been criticized by several law professors, including Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks from Yale who argue that eliminating affirmative action would actually reduce the number of black lawyers by 12.7%.[102] A 2008 study by Jesse Rothstein and Albert H. Yoon confirmed Sander's mismatch findings, but also found that eliminating affirmative action would "lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools."[103] These high numbers predictions were doubted in a review of previous studies by Peter Arcidiacono and Michael Lovenheim. Their 2016 article found a strong indication that affirmative action results in a mismatch effect. They argued that the attendance by some African-American students to less-selective schools would significantly improve the low first attempt rate at passing the state bar, but they cautioned that such improvements could be outweighed by decreases in law school attendance.[104]

text: A 2011 study proposed that mismatch can only occur when a selective school possesses private information that, had this information been disclosed, would have changed the student's choice of school. The study found that this is in fact the case for Duke University, and that this information predicts the student's academic performance after beginning college.[105]

text: A 2016 study on affirmative action in India fails to find evidence for the mismatching hypothesis.[106]


document_title: Thelma & Louise

question_text: who played the truck driver in thelma and louise

text: Thelma & Louise

text: Plot[edit]

text: Best friends Thelma Dickinson and Louise Sawyer set out for a weekend vacation at a fishing cabin in the mountains to take a break from their dreary lives in Arkansas. Thelma, a ditzy housewife, is married to a disrespectful and controlling man, Darryl, while sharp-tongued Louise works as a waitress in a diner and is on–off dating a musician, Jimmy, who spends most of his time on the road.

text: On the way, they stop for a drink at a roadhouse bar, where Thelma meets and dances with a flirtatious stranger, Harlan. When he takes her outside to the parking lot to get some fresh air, he starts kissing her and taking her clothes off without her consent. Thelma resists, but Harlan hits her, and then attempts to rape her. Louise finds them and threatens to shoot Harlan with the gun that Thelma brought with her. Harlan stops, but, as the women walk away, he yells that he should have continued the rape and continually insults them. Enraged, Louise shoots him dead, and the pair flee the scene.

text: At a motel, they discuss how to handle the situation. Thelma wants to go to the police, but Louise fears that no one will believe Thelma's claim of attempted rape and they will be subsequently charged for murder. They decide to go on the run, but Louise insists that they travel from Oklahoma to Mexico without going through Texas. Something happened to Louise in Texas several years earlier, and Thelma suspects it was something similar to what had happened with Harlan but Louise vehemently says she will not talk about it. Heading west, the women come across an attractive young drifter, J.D., who Thelma quickly falls for, and Thelma convinces Louise to let him hitch a ride with them. Louise contacts Jimmy and asks him to wire transfer her life savings to her. When she goes to pick up the money, she finds that Jimmy has come to deliver the money in person, and the two spend the night together. Jimmy proposes to Louise, but she refuses. Meanwhile, Thelma invites J.D. to her room, and they sleep together. She then learns he is a thief who has broken parole.

text: The following morning, Thelma leaves J.D. in her motel room to meet Louise downstairs for breakfast, and, when they return, they discover J.D. has stolen Louise's life savings and fled. Louise is distraught, so a guilty Thelma takes charge and later robs a nearby convenience store using tactics she learned from listening to J.D. Meanwhile, the FBI is getting closer to catching the fugitives after witnesses at the bar saw Louise's 1966 Ford Thunderbird convertible speeding out of the parking lot the night of the shooting. Their whereabouts are also questioned by the owner of the fishing cabin after the women failed to arrive for the weekend. Arkansas State Police Investigator Hal Slocumb leads the investigation and questions both J.D. and Jimmy and taps into the phone line at Darryl's house. He discovers that Louise had been raped years earlier in Texas, so sympathizes with her situation and understands why they didn't report Harlan's murder to the authorities. During a couple of brief phone conversations with Louise, he expresses his sympathy but is unsuccessful in his attempts to persuade her to surrender.

text: Thelma tells Louise she understands if she wants to go back home, knowing she has Jimmy waiting for her, but explains she cannot go back to Darryl. Louise promises they will keep going together. The pair are later pulled over by a New Mexico state trooper for speeding. Knowing he will soon discover they are wanted for murder and armed robbery, Thelma holds him at gunpoint and locks him in the trunk of his police car, while Louise takes his gun and ammunition. They drive away from the scene and spend the next few nights heading further west. On the road, they encounter a foul-mouthed truck driver who repeatedly makes obscene gestures at them. They pull over and demand an apology from him; when he refuses, they fire at the fuel tanker he is driving, causing it to explode.

text: Thelma and Louise are finally cornered by the authorities only one hundred yards from the edge of the Grand Canyon. Hal arrives on the scene, but he is refused the chance to make one last attempt to talk the women into surrendering. Rather than be captured and spend the rest of their lives in jail, Thelma proposes that they "keep going". Louise asks Thelma if she is certain, and Thelma says yes. They kiss, Louise steps on the gas, and they accelerate over the cliff.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Susan Sarandon as Louise Elizabeth Sawyer
Geena Davis as Thelma Yvonne Dickinson
Harvey Keitel as Detective Hal Slocumb
Michael Madsen as Jimmy Lennox
Christopher McDonald as Darryl Dickinson
Stephen Tobolowsky as Max
Brad Pitt as J.D.
Timothy Carhart as Harlan Puckett
Jason Beghe as State Trooper
Marco St. John as Truck Driver

text: Production[edit]

text: Although the setting for the film is a fictional route between Arkansas and the Grand Canyon, it was filmed almost entirely in the states of California and Utah. The primary filming locations were rural areas around Bakersfield, California and Moab, Utah. The Grand Canyon scenes were actually filmed just south of Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah.[2] Parts of the film were also shot at Shafer Overlook, Monument Valley, La Sal Mountains, La Sal Junction, Cisco, Old Valley City Reservoir, Thompson Springs, Arches National Park, and Crescent Junction in Utah.[3]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film was screened out of competition at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival.[4]

text: Reception[edit]

text: The film received critical acclaim. Janet Maslin of The New York Times had only praise for the film in her review:

text: Mr. Scott's Thelma and Louise, with a sparkling screenplay by the first-time writer Callie Khouri, is a surprise on this and many other scores. It reveals the previously untapped talent of Mr. Scott (best known for majestically moody action films like Alien, Blade Runner and Black Rain) for exuberant comedy, and for vibrant American imagery, notwithstanding his English roots. It reimagines the buddy film with such freshness and vigor that the genre seems positively new. It discovers unexpected resources in both its stars, Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis, who are perfectly teamed as the spirited and original title characters.[5]

text: Roger Ebert also praised the film but withheld a perfect score on the basis of "the last shot before the titles begin. It's a freeze frame that fades to white, which is fine, except it does so with unseemly haste .... It's unsettling to get involved in a movie that takes 128 minutes to bring you to a payoff that the filmmakers seem to fear."[6]

text: After watching the film, singer-songwriter Tori Amos wrote "Me and a Gun", the story of her rape several years earlier.[7][8]

text: The final scene, where the two embrace before driving off a cliff, has become iconic.[9] Numerous homages and parodies of the scene have appeared, including alternate film endings, cartoon parodies,[10] video game "Easter eggs",[11] and as a tragic ending to television series, music videos,[12] and commercials.[13][14]

text: The film also received harsh and significant criticism from those who thought it was biased against men and that its depictions of men were unfairly negative.[15][16]

text: Metacritic lists a composite critical score of 88 out of 100.[17]

text: Feminism[edit]

text: Numerous critics and writers have remarked on the strong feminist overtones of Thelma & Louise. Film critic B. Ruby Rich praises the film as an uncompromising validation of women's experiences,[18] while Kenneth Turan calls it a "neo-feminist road movie".[19] In her essay "The Daughters of Thelma and Louise", Jessica Enevold argues that the film constitutes "an attack on conventional patterns of chauvinist male behavior toward females". In addition, it "exposes the traditional stereotyping of male–female relationships" while rescripting the typical gender roles of the road movie genre.[20]

text: In her review for the Los Angeles Times, film critic Sheila Benson objects to the characterization of the film as feminist, arguing that it is more preoccupied with revenge and violence than feminist values.[21]

text: In his review for the New York Post, film critic Kyle Smith describes the film as "a misogynist tale about unbelievably ditzy women who lose what remains of their reason under pressure and suffer the ultimate punishment."[22] Smith's review focused less on the fact that the film stars strong female characters and instead points out the terrible decisions these strong female characters make throughout the entire film.[22]

text: In an article commemorating the film's 20th anniversary in 2011, Raina Lipsitz called it "the last great film about women" and said that it heralded the achievements of women that caused 1992 to become "the year of the woman".[23] However, she also said that women-themed films have since been losing ground.[23]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: Khouri won an Academy Award for Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen; Scott, Davis, Sarandon, cinematographer Adrian Biddle, and film editor Thom Noble were nominated for Oscars.

text:
Award
Category
Nominee
Result

Academy Award
Best Director
Ridley Scott
Nominated

Best Original Screenplay
Callie Khouri
Won

Best Actress
Geena Davis
Nominated

Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Best Cinematography
Adrian Biddle
Nominated

Best Film Editing
Thom Noble
Nominated

BAFTA Award
Best Film

Nominated

Best Direction
Ridley Scott
Nominated

Best Screenplay – Original
Callie Khouri
Nominated

Best Actress
Geena Davis
Nominated

Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Best Cinematography
Adrian Biddle
Nominated

Best Editing
Thom Noble
Nominated

Best Original Film Score
Hans Zimmer
Nominated

Golden Globe Award
Best Motion Picture – Drama

Nominated

Best Screenplay – Motion Picture
Callie Khouri
Won

Best Actress – Drama
Geena Davis
Nominated

Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Boston Society of Film Critics
Best Actress
Geena Davis
Won

British Society of Cinematographers
Best Cinematography Award
Adrian Biddle
Nominated

Los Angeles Film Critics Association
Best Actress
Geena Davis
Nominated

NBR Award
Best Actress
Susan Sarandon
Won

Geena Davis
Won

Top Ten Films

Won

Saint Jordi Award
Best Foreign Actress
Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Golden Spike Award

Ridley Scott
Won (tied with The Adjuster)

Bodil Award
Best Non-European Film
Ridley Scott
Won

Chicago Film Critics Association
Best Actress
Geena Davis
Nominated

Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Best Director
Ridley Scott
Nominated

Best Picture

Nominated

Best Screenplay
Callie Khouri
Nominated

César Award
Best Foreign Film
Ridley Scott
Nominated

David di Donatello Award
Best Foreign Actress
Geena Davis
Won

Susan Sarandon
Won

Best Foreign Film
Ridley Scott
Nominated

DGA Award
Outstanding Directorial Achievement
Ridley Scott
Nominated

Silver Ribbon
Best Female Dubbing
Rossella Izzo (voice of Louise)
Won

Best Foreign Director
Ridley Scott
Nominated

Critics' Circle Film Awards
Actress of the Year
Susan Sarandon (also for White Palace)
Won

Director of the Year
Ridley Scott
Won

Film of the Year

Won

MTV Movie Award
Best Female Performance
Geena Davis
Nominated

Best On-Screen Duo
Geena Davis & Susan Sarandon
Nominated

NSFC Award
Best Supporting Actor
Harvey Keitel (also for Bugsy and Mortal Thoughts)
Won

Best Actress
Susan Sarandon
Nominated

Literary Award
Screenplay
Callie Khouri
Won

Writers Guild of America Award
Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Won

text: The British Film Institute published a book about the film in 2000[24] as part of a Modern Classics series. On the Writers Guild of America Award's list of 101 best screenplays, it made No. 72.[25] The film was ranked on the Australian program 20 to 1, in the episode Magnificent Movie Moments.

text: American Film Institute lists

text:
AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills – No. 76
AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains: Thelma Dickinson & Louise Sawyer – No. 24 Heroes
AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers – No. 78

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: Pete Haycock on slide guitar contributed to Thunderbird, the theme music for the film.[26] In addition to Glenn Frey's "Part of Me, Part of You", which became the film's primary theme song, the soundtrack included songs by Chris Whitley, Martha Reeves, Toni Childs, Marianne Faithfull, Charlie Sexton, Grayson Hugh, B.B. King, and Michael McDonald.


question_text: name the last english premier league team to win the uefa champions league

text: List of finals[edit]

text:
Key

Match was won during extra time

*
Match was won on a penalty shoot-out

&
Match was won after a replay

text:
The "Season" column refers to the season the competition was held, and wikilinks to the article about that season.
The wikilinks in the "Score" column point to the article about that season's final game.

text:
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals

Season
Nation
Winners
Score
Runners-up
Nation
Venue
Attendance[11]

1955–56
 Spain
Real Madrid
4–3
Stade de Reims
 France
 Parc des Princes, Paris
38,239

1956–57
 Spain
Real Madrid
2–0
Fiorentina
 Italy
 Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, Madrid
124,000

1957–58
 Spain
Real Madrid
3–2
Milan
 Italy
 Heysel Stadium, Brussels
67,000

1958–59
 Spain
Real Madrid
2–0
Stade de Reims
 France
 Neckarstadion, Stuttgart
72,000

1959–60
 Spain
Real Madrid
7–3
Eintracht Frankfurt
 West Germany
 Hampden Park, Glasgow
127,621

1960–61
 Portugal
Benfica
3–2
Barcelona
 Spain
 Wankdorf Stadium, Bern
26,732

1961–62
 Portugal
Benfica
5–3
Real Madrid
 Spain
 Olympisch Stadion, Amsterdam
61,257

1962–63
 Italy
Milan
2–1
Benfica
 Portugal
 Wembley Stadium, London
45,715

1963–64
 Italy
Internazionale
3–1
Real Madrid
 Spain
 Prater Stadium, Vienna
71,333

1964–65
 Italy
Internazionale
1–0
Benfica
 Portugal
 San Siro, Milan
89,000

1965–66
 Spain
Real Madrid
2–1
Partizan
 Yugoslavia
 Heysel Stadium, Brussels
46,745

1966–67
 Scotland
Celtic
2–1
Internazionale
 Italy
 Estádio Nacional, Lisbon
45,000

1967–68
 England
Manchester United
4–1
Benfica
 Portugal
 Wembley Stadium, London
92,225

1968–69
 Italy
Milan
4–1
Ajax
 Netherlands
 Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, Madrid
31,782

1969–70
 Netherlands
Feyenoord
2–1
Celtic
 Scotland
 San Siro, Milan
53,187

1970–71
 Netherlands
Ajax
2–0
Panathinaikos
 Greece
 Wembley Stadium, London
83,179

1971–72
 Netherlands
Ajax
2–0
Internazionale
 Italy
 De Kuip, Rotterdam
61,354

1972–73
 Netherlands
Ajax
1–0
Juventus
 Italy
 Red Star Stadium, Belgrade
89,484

1973–74
 West Germany
Bayern Munich
4–0&[A]
Atlético Madrid
 Spain
 Heysel Stadium, Brussels
72,047

1974–75
 West Germany
Bayern Munich
2–0
Leeds United
 England
 Parc des Princes, Paris
48,374

1975–76
 West Germany
Bayern Munich
1–0
Saint-Étienne
 France
 Hampden Park, Glasgow
54,864

1976–77
 England
Liverpool
3–1
Borussia Mönchengladbach
 West Germany
 Stadio Olimpico, Rome
52,078

1977–78
 England
Liverpool
1–0
Club Brugge
 Belgium
 Wembley Stadium, London
92,500

1978–79
 England
Nottingham Forest
1–0
Malmö FF
 Sweden
 Olympiastadion, Munich
57,500

1979–80
 England
Nottingham Forest
1–0
Hamburg
 West Germany
 Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, Madrid
51,000

1980–81
 England
Liverpool
1–0
Real Madrid
 Spain
 Parc des Princes, Paris
48,360

1981–82
 England
Aston Villa
1–0
Bayern Munich
 West Germany
 De Kuip, Rotterdam
46,000

1982–83
 West Germany
Hamburg
1–0
Juventus
 Italy
 Olympic Stadium, Athens
73,500

1983–84
 England
Liverpool
1–1*[B]
Roma
 Italy
 Stadio Olimpico, Rome
69,693

1984–85
 Italy
Juventus
1–0
Liverpool
 England
 Heysel Stadium, Brussels
58,000

1985–86
 Romania
Steaua București
0–0*[C]
Barcelona
 Spain
 Estadio Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán, Seville
70,000

1986–87
 Portugal
Porto
2–1
Bayern Munich
 West Germany
 Prater Stadium, Vienna
57,500

1987–88
 Netherlands
PSV Eindhoven
0–0*[D]
Benfica
 Portugal
 Neckarstadion, Stuttgart
68,000

1988–89
 Italy
Milan
4–0
Steaua București
 Romania
 Camp Nou, Barcelona
97,000

1989–90
 Italy
Milan
1–0
Benfica
 Portugal
 Prater Stadium, Vienna
57,558

1990–91
 Yugoslavia
Red Star Belgrade
0–0*[E]
Marseille
 France
 Stadio San Nicola, Bari
56,000

1991–92
 Spain
Barcelona
1–0
Sampdoria
 Italy
 Wembley Stadium, London
70,827

1992–93
 France
Marseille
1–0
Milan
 Italy
 Olympiastadion, Munich
64,400

1993–94
 Italy
Milan
4–0
Barcelona
 Spain
 Olympic Stadium, Athens
70,000

1994–95
 Netherlands
Ajax
1–0
Milan
 Italy
 Ernst-Happel-Stadion, Vienna
49,730

1995–96
 Italy
Juventus
1–1*[F]
Ajax
 Netherlands
 Stadio Olimpico, Rome
70,000

1996–97
 Germany
Borussia Dortmund
3–1
Juventus
 Italy
 Olympiastadion, Munich
59,000

1997–98
 Spain
Real Madrid
1–0
Juventus
 Italy
 Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam
48,500

1998–99
 England
Manchester United
2–1
Bayern Munich
 Germany
 Camp Nou, Barcelona
90,245

1999–2000
 Spain
Real Madrid
3–0
Valencia
 Spain
 Stade de France, Saint-Denis
80,000

2000–01
 Germany
Bayern Munich
1–1*[G]
Valencia
 Spain
 San Siro, Milan
71,500

2001–02
 Spain
Real Madrid
2–1
Bayer Leverkusen
 Germany
 Hampden Park, Glasgow
50,499

2002–03
 Italy
Milan
0–0*[H]
Juventus
 Italy
 Old Trafford, Manchester
62,315

2003–04
 Portugal
Porto
3–0
Monaco
 France
 Arena AufSchalke, Gelsenkirchen
53,053

2004–05
 England
Liverpool
3–3*[I]
Milan
 Italy
 Atatürk Olympic Stadium, Istanbul
69,000

2005–06
 Spain
Barcelona
2–1
Arsenal
 England
 Stade de France, Saint-Denis
79,610

2006–07
 Italy
Milan
2–1
Liverpool
 England
 Olympic Stadium, Athens
63,000

2007–08
 England
Manchester United
1–1*[J]
Chelsea
 England
 Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow
67,310

2008–09
 Spain
Barcelona
2–0
Manchester United
 England
 Stadio Olimpico, Rome
62,467

2009–10
 Italy
Internazionale
2–0
Bayern Munich
 Germany
 Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, Madrid
73,490

2010–11
 Spain
Barcelona
3–1
Manchester United
 England
 Wembley Stadium, London
87,695

2011–12
 England
Chelsea
1–1*[K]
Bayern Munich
 Germany
 Allianz Arena, Munich
62,500

2012–13
 Germany
Bayern Munich
2–1
Borussia Dortmund
 Germany
 Wembley Stadium, London
86,298

2013–14
 Spain
Real Madrid
4–1
Atlético Madrid
 Spain
 Estádio da Luz, Lisbon
60,976

2014–15
 Spain
Barcelona
3–1
Juventus
 Italy
 Olympiastadion, Berlin
70,442

2015–16
 Spain
Real Madrid
1–1*[L]
Atlético Madrid
 Spain
 San Siro, Milan
71,942

2016–17
 Spain
Real Madrid
4–1
Juventus
 Italy
 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
65,842

Upcoming finals

Season
Nation
Finalist
Match
Finalist
Nation
Venue

2017–18

–

 NSC Olimpiyskiy Stadium, Kiev

2018–19

–

 Wanda Metropolitano, Madrid

text: Performances[edit]

text: By club[edit]

text:
Performance in the European Cup and UEFA Champions League by club

v
t
e

Club
Winners
Runners-up
Years won
Years runner-up

 Real Madrid
12
3
1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1966, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2014, 2016, 2017
1962, 1964, 1981

 Milan
7
4
1963, 1969, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2003, 2007
1958, 1993, 1995, 2005

 Bayern Munich*
5
5
1974, 1975, 1976, 2001, 2013
1982, 1987, 1999, 2010, 2012

 Barcelona
5
3
1992, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2015
1961, 1986, 1994

 Liverpool
5
2
1977, 1978, 1981, 1984, 2005
1985, 2007

 Ajax*
4
2
1971, 1972, 1973, 1995
1969, 1996

 Internazionale
3
2
1964, 1965, 2010
1967, 1972

 Manchester United*
3
2
1968, 1999, 2008
2009, 2011

 Juventus*
2
7
1985, 1996
1973, 1983, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2015, 2017

 Benfica
2
5
1961, 1962
1963, 1965, 1968, 1988, 1990

 Nottingham Forest
2
0
1979, 1980
—

 Porto
2
0
1987, 2004
—

 Celtic
1
1
1967
1970

 Hamburg
1
1
1983
1980

 Steaua București
1
1
1986
1989

 Marseille
1
1
1993
1991

 Borussia Dortmund
1
1
1997
2013

 Chelsea*
1
1
2012
2008

 Feyenoord
1
0
1970
—

 Aston Villa
1
0
1982
—

 PSV Eindhoven
1
0
1988
—

 Red Star Belgrade
1
0
1991
—

 Atlético Madrid
0
3
—
1974, 2014, 2016

 Reims
0
2
—
1956, 1959

 Valencia
0
2
—
2000, 2001

 Fiorentina
0
1
—
1957

 Eintracht Frankfurt
0
1
—
1960

 Partizan
0
1
—
1966

 Panathinaikos
0
1
—
1971

 Leeds United
0
1
—
1975

 Saint-Étienne
0
1
—
1976

 Borussia Mönchengladbach
0
1
—
1977

 Club Brugge
0
1
—
1978

 Malmö FF
0
1
—
1979

 Roma
0
1
—
1984

 Sampdoria
0
1
—
1992

 Bayer Leverkusen
0
1
—
2002

 Monaco
0
1
—
2004

 Arsenal
0
1
—
2006

text: * Club has won all three major UEFA competitions

text: By nation[edit]

text:
Performance by nation

Nation
Winners
Runners-up

 Spain
17
11

 Italy
12
16

 England
12
7

 Germany
7
10

 Netherlands
6
2

 Portugal
4
5

 France
1
5

 Romania
 Scotland
 Yugoslavia
1
1

 Belgium
 Greece
 Sweden
0
1

text: Venues[edit]

text:
Multiple guest and neutral hosts

Ground
Hosts
Years

 Wembley Stadium, London
7
1963, 1968, 1971, 1978, 1992, 2011, 2013

 Santiago Bernabéu Stadium, Madrid
4
1957, 1969, 1980, 2010

 King Baudouin Stadium, Brussels
4
1958, 1966, 1974, 1985

 Ernst-Happel-Stadion, Vienna
4
1964, 1987, 1990, 1995

 San Siro, Milan
4
1965, 1970, 2001, 2016

 Stadio Olimpico, Rome
4
1977, 1984, 1996, 2009

 Parc des Princes, Paris
3
1956, 1975, 1981

 Hampden Park, Glasgow
3
1960, 1976, 2002

 Olympiastadion, Munich
3
1979, 1993, 1997

 Olympic Stadium, Athens
3
1983, 1994, 2007

 Mercedes-Benz Arena, Stuttgart
2
1959, 1988

 De Kuip, Rotterdam
2
1972, 1982

 Camp Nou, Barcelona
2
1989, 1999

 Stade de France, Saint-Denis
2
2000, 2006

 Wankdorf Stadium, Bern
1
1961

 Olympisch Stadion, Amsterdam
1
1962

 Estádio Nacional, Lisbon
1
1967

 Red Star Stadium, Belgrade
1
1973

 Estadio Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán, Seville
1
1986

 Stadio San Nicola, Bari
1
1991

 Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam
1
1998

 Old Trafford, Manchester
1
2003

 Veltins-Arena, Gelsenkirchen
1
2004

 Atatürk Olympic Stadium, Istanbul
1
2005

 Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow
1
2008

 Allianz Arena, Munich
1
2012

 Estádio da Luz, Lisbon
1
2014

 Olympiastadion, Berlin
1
2015

 Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
1
2017

 NSC Olimpiyskiy Stadium, Kiev
1
2018

 Wanda Metropolitano, Madrid
1
2019

text: Notes[edit]

text: A. ^ The first final, played two days earlier, ended 1–1 after extra time.[12]

text: B. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Liverpool won the penalty shoot-out 4–2.[13]

text: C. ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes and extra time. Steaua București won the penalty shoot-out 2–0.[14]

text: D. ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes and extra time. PSV Eindhoven won the penalty shoot-out 6–5.[15]

text: E. ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes and extra time. Red Star Belgrade won the penalty shoot-out 5–3.[16]

text: F. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Juventus won the penalty shoot-out 4–2.[17]

text: G. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Bayern Munich won the penalty shoot-out 5–4.[18]

text: H. ^ Score was 0–0 after 90 minutes and extra time. Milan won the penalty shoot-out 3–2.[19]

text: I. ^ Score was 3–3 after 90 minutes and extra time. Liverpool won the penalty shoot-out 3–2.[20]

text: J. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Manchester United won the penalty shoot-out 6–5.[21]

text: K. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Chelsea won the penalty shoot-out 4–3.[22]

text: L. ^ Score was 1–1 after 90 minutes and extra time. Real Madrid won the penalty shoot-out 5–3.[23]