Malcolm Rivera
Affirmative action is a highly controversial topic in American politics. Its supporters claim that it promotes equality and representation for groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression. However, in 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This article will explore the relationship between affirmative action and equal protection, and discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Affirmative action in college admissions | Unconstitutional |
| Affirmative action in public works projects | Constitutional |
Explore related products
$16.19 $29.99
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action in college admissions
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al. (6-3) and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (6-2) that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional. The Court held that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection generally means that state laws must protect and preserve everyone's fundamental rights equally. It originally addressed racial discrimination against Black Americans, but the Supreme Court has identified other "suspect classifications," including gender and immigration status.
The Supreme Court's ruling in 2023 is not the first time it has addressed affirmative action. In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor authored the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which recognised affirmative action as a constitutional practice of achieving a racially diverse campus at institutions of higher education. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which required that 10% of federal funding for certain public works projects be set aside for businesses owned by "minority group members." The majority held that the government had a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups.
Affirmative action remains controversial in American politics. Supporters claim that it promotes equality and representation for groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression and counteracts continuing bias and prejudice against women and minorities. They also point to contemporary examples of conscious and unconscious biases, such as the finding that job-seekers with African American-sounding names may be less likely to get a callback than those with white-sounding names, as proof that affirmative action is still necessary.
How the Constitution Shields You from DFACS
You may want to see also
Affirmative action and the Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This generally means that state laws must protect and preserve everyone's fundamental rights equally. The Supreme Court has identified other "suspect classifications", including gender and immigration status, in addition to racial discrimination against Black Americans.
In the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that race-conscious admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional.
However, affirmative action remains controversial in American politics. Supporters claim that it promotes equality and representation for groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression. They also point to contemporary examples of conscious and unconscious biases, such as the finding that job-seekers with African American-sounding names may be less likely to get a callback than those with white-sounding names, as proof that affirmative action is still necessary.
In the case of Fullilove v. Klutznick, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which required that 10% of federal funding for certain public works projects be set aside for businesses owned by "minority group members". The majority held that the government had a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups.
Capitalism and the Constitution: Friends or Foes?
You may want to see also
Affirmative action and the Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment's due process clause, as well as the equal protection clause, were both challenged in the case of Fullilove v. Klutznick. The case involved a challenge to a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which required that 10% of federal funding for certain public works projects be set aside for businesses owned by "minority group members". The plaintiffs argued that the provision violated the Fifth Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the provision's constitutionality, holding that the government had a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups.
The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause states: "No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This generally means that state laws must protect and preserve everyone's fundamental rights equally. While it originally addressed racial discrimination against Black Americans, the Supreme Court has identified other "suspect classifications," including gender and immigration status.
In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that race-conscious admissions programs are unconstitutional. This decision was a shift from the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger decision in 2003, which recognised affirmative action as a constitutional practice for achieving a racially diverse campus at institutions of higher education.
Copyright Protection: Is It in the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act
The Supreme Court has identified other "suspect classifications", including gender and immigration status, but it views different protected classes differently. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling came about as a result of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College case, in which the Supreme Court majority ruled that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional.
However, affirmative action has been upheld by the Supreme Court in other cases. For example, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which required that 10% of federal funding for certain public works projects be set aside for businesses owned by "minority group members". The majority held that the government had a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups.
Supporters of affirmative action claim that it promotes equality and representation for groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression. They also argue that it counteracts continuing bias and prejudice against women and minorities, pointing to contemporary examples of conscious and unconscious biases, such as the finding that job-seekers with African American-sounding names may be less likely to get a callback than those with white-sounding names.
Native Americans: Constitutional Protections and Their Limitations
You may want to see also
Affirmative action and the Supreme Court's view of different protected classes
The Supreme Court has identified other "suspect classifications" that are protected by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including gender and immigration status. However, the Supreme Court views different protected classes differently. For example, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023), the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision was based on the argument that the consideration of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional.
In contrast, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action policies that benefit minority-owned businesses. In Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which required that 10% of federal funding for certain public works projects be set aside for businesses owned by "minority group members." The Court held that the government had a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups and that the provision did not violate the equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court's view on affirmative action and protected classes has evolved over time. In 2003, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor authored the landmark Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which recognized affirmative action as a constitutional practice for achieving a racially diverse campus at institutions of higher education. However, the more recent decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and similar cases indicate a shift in the Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause as it relates to race-based affirmative action in college admissions.
Supporters of affirmative action argue that it promotes equality and representation for groups that are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have faced historical discrimination or oppression. They also point to contemporary examples of conscious and unconscious biases, such as the finding that job-seekers with African American-sounding names may be less likely to get a callback than those with white-sounding names, as proof that affirmative action is still necessary.
Green Card Holders: Constitutional Protections and Their Limits
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Equal protection generally means that state laws must protect and preserve everyone's fundamental rights equally.
