|
What do you think about affirmative action? Like abortion and same-sex
marriage, this is a hotly contested political issue across the nation.
Since 1978, the Supreme Court itself has remained silent on the issue
until June of this year when two cases challenging the admissions
procedures at the University of Michigan were decided. A record number of
amicus curiae briefs (opinions advising the Court about a
particular case from parties that are not directly involved) were filed
when the Supreme Court agreed to hear these cases and when the decisions
were announced, both supporters and opponents of affirmative action
claimed victory. How could this be?
Affirmative
action is used all over, from employment to the admissions procedures of
universities attempting to extend greater opportunities to disadvantaged
minorities. However, affirmative action is not a constitutional right
(like freedom of speech or religion). The Supreme Court can decide if it
is a practice that has value in our nation, and has the power to either
expand or limit its use. The last time the Court considered the use of
affirmative action in public higher education was in 1978, when Alan Bakke
challenged the admissions process that denied him admission twice at the
Medical School of the University of California at Davis. The Supreme
Court in University of California Regents v. Bakke upheld the
legality of affirmative action but limited its use.
The court
declared that a special admissions program that was created to admit
minorities into the medical school was “undeniably a classification based
on race and ethnic background” because “White applicants could compete for
only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to
minority students.” Rather than the quota system or program, the
splintered (5-4) Court suggested that race or ethnic background was
permissible as only one of several admissions criteria.
For 25 years after Bakke, the Supreme Court rejected
requests to decide cases that involved affirmative action. Then, earlier
this year, they agreed to hear the two University of Michigan affirmative
action cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v.
Michigan.
The point system
The first of the cases questioned the ‘point
system’ that was used in the University’s undergraduate admissions.
Prospective students earned points on a ‘selection index,’ on which a
student could earn a maximum of 150 points. Points were given for various
factors, such as GPA, standardized test scores, extracurricular
activities, and personal essays. If an applicant was part of an
“underrepresented” minority group, that applicant was automatically
awarded 20 points, or one-fifth of the minimum number of points needed for
admission.
The Supreme Court ruled that this type of
racial classification in university admissions is illegal. Each student
was not considered as a whole under the point system – with all
factors, including race, in mind – and that “critical criteria are often
individual qualities or experience not dependent upon race but
sometimes associated with it.”
Critical Mass
In
Grutter v. Michigan, the Supreme Court overruled the point system
used in undergraduate admissions, but upheld the Law School’s policy of
admitting a ‘critical mass’ of minority students to achieve a
heterogeneous student body. The University of Michigan Law School proved
that there is a compelling state interest in student body diversity in its
law school, which permits them to use race as a “predominant” factor in
admissions.
In
other words, the Court recognized that diversity benefits education
– when a critical mass of
underrepresented minority students is present within the student body,
“racial stereotypes lose their force because
non-minority students learn there is no ‘minority viewpoint’ but rather a
variety of viewpoints among minority students.”
The Law
School’s admissions policy was also upheld because it considered other
factors than race. The Court pointed out that the “Law School frequently
accepts non-minority applicants with grades and test scores lower than
underrepresented minority applicants (and other non-minority applicants)
who are rejected.” The Law School, in other words, individually assessed
each applicant’s strengths and weaknesses instead of classifying them into
a racial group and deciding admission based on that.
A victory for both
sides?
Proponents
of affirmative action see this as a major victory since the Court upheld
the use of the race-conscious admissions policies that are in place at
most colleges and universities today. Liz Epperson, an attorney for the
NAACP, notes that “colleges and universities should understand that this
is a strong victory, that these institutions are free to continue using
affirmative action, and that they need only be sure that such a plan takes
an individualized assessment of each student rather than using a quota
system.”
Opponents
of affirmative action also see the decisions as a victory, since the point
system was struck down. They focus on the opinion written by Justice O’
Connor in the law school case, where she asserts that affirmative action
“may no longer be necessary” after 25 years. They view this as a
deadline, and are renewing their efforts to decrease the use of
affirmative action in the United States. Whatever the case, the Supreme
Court has handed down a split decision, signaling that the Court is as
divided as the public is about affirmative action.
What
do these decisions mean for our society? It means that the Court, the
final interpreter of the Constitution, feels that race should not be
totally ignored and, in fact, be taken into consideration when deciding
who to hire or which applicant to admit. Justice O’ Connor writes that
diversity is a benefit that helps to break down racial stereotypes that
plague our society today. She declares:
“Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the
civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation,
indivisible, is to be realized.”
It is
clear, then, that the majority of the Court feels that the nation has not
yet achieved the elusive goal of racial and ethnic equality. We are
hopeful that in 25 years, society will have progressed to the point that
no minority group would be considered “disadvantaged”, and that
affirmative action will be a practice of the past. But for now,
affirmative action must be used to promote diversity and to offer equal
opportunities to those who have overcome the enormous obstacles that
others have not had to endure. |
