In the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision in 2023, Affirmative Action has once again become one of many controversial issues at the intersection of law, race, and politics in the United States. Many deem Affirmative Action necessary, with the program’s aim to create equity in education and employment in response to systematic discrimination and inequality. However, others view the program as a threat to meritocracy and racial equity. The struggle of opposing views on Affirmative Action has long been a lightning rod in American law and politics. Similar to the period of Reconstruction, Affirmative Action had been implemented to empower Black Americans with opportunities, especially in a post-slavery, post-segregated society.
What Is Affirmative Action?
Affirmative Action is collection of policies and practices that work to reduce inequalities in education and employment that stem from historical, systematic inequities. Equally, Affirmative Action is enacted to diversify populations via gender, race, or socioeconomic status. While often described as a “race quota,” the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that program quotas based solely on race are unconstitutional. Instead race-conscious policies must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest which is typically the educational benefits of diversity.
Affirmative Action is not a guarantee of admission or employment based on race, gender, or economic status. Rather, Affirmative Action is an alternate method of measurement for underrepresented and disadvantaged students. There are no Affirmative Action policies in place for housing, criminal justice, credit, or debt.
Affirmative Action Over Time
The first legal case relating to the implementation of affirmative action is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). In 1971, UC Davis Medical School created a limited, minority-only admissions pool that reserved 16 seats for minority and disadvantaged applicants. A White man by the name of Allan Blake applied for the UC Davis Medical School in 1973 and was rejected. Blakke applied again in 1974 and was informed that even if admitted, his attendance could pose a legal challenge. Bakke went on to file a discrimination suit in the California Supreme Court in the same year.
To clarify the case, it is important to note that this institution did not create a minority-only school, however, it did create two seperate admissions tracks. The first track reflected the regular admissions practice in which all are welcomed to apply. Most applicants admitted through this track were White. The special admissions program for minorities or disadvantaged students reserved 16 of the 100 seats for the UC Davis Medical School for applicants who were economically disadvantaged or from underrepresented ethnic groups. The special admissions program evaluated students with more flexible criteria.
Though Bakke was rejected twice via the regular admission process, he sued the institution on claims that their admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bakke’s admission was denied twice, despite having higher test scores and entry GPA than some applicants who were admitted through the special admissions program.
Bakke never tried to apply through the “minority” track; his lawsuit challenged the very existence of a racially exclusive program. The Supreme Court found that race-based quotas in public institutions, like 16 reserved seats for minorities, were unconstitutional; however, race could be considered in admission review.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016) were also landmark cases concerning affirmative action, with both addressing the scope of race-related admissions. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the court struck down Michigan’s admissions policies that assigned additional application points based on race.
The End of Affirmative Action, for Now
With an increased attention on politics and race relations post George Floyd’s murder in 2020, the conversation surrounding Affirmative Action intensified. Conservatives began to push for an end to all race-based considerations, which would be reflected in the dismissal of the program following the 6-3 Supreme Court decision in landmark cases, Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard (2023) and its complementary case involving the University of North Carolina.
What we can expect from this outcome is the rise of “race-neutral policies.” Target’s removal of DEI and the closure of USDA loans for Black farmers are a few examples of this change. Conversations at the intersection of race, merit, and opportunity will continue to find new voices as we persist in the fight for equitable education and opportunity in the United States.
Leave a Comment