Omar Bennett
Affirmative action programs in the United States have faced significant constitutional challenges, with critics arguing that they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by promoting racial discrimination. The Supreme Court's recent decision in 2023 to end affirmative action in higher education is a pivotal moment, reversing decades of precedent. This decision has effectively prohibited universities from considering race as a factor in admissions, marking a shift towards 'colorblind' criteria. The Court's ruling has sparked intense debates, with some celebrating it as a step towards equality and others expressing concerns about perpetuating racial inequality. The impact of this ruling extends beyond higher education, with potential implications for employers and other institutions striving for diversity and equity.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Superficial factors | Gender, race, and country of origin |
| Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment | Forbids consideration of race |
| Fifth Amendment's due process clause | Violated |
| Strict scrutiny | Must be applied to racial classifications by the government |
| Diversity | A "compelling governmental interest" |
| Racial quotas | Unconstitutional |
| Stereotyping | Unconstitutional |
| Reverse discrimination | Against white males |
| Unconstitutional | Violates the constitutional rights of students and educators |
Explore related products
$19.99 $29.99
What You'll Learn
- The constitutional rights of students and educators are violated by restrictions on curriculums and programs
- The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race
- Race-conscious admissions policies are deemed unconstitutional
- Affirmative action is banned in some states
- Affirmative action is criticised for being based on superficial factors
The constitutional rights of students and educators are violated by restrictions on curriculums and programs
However, this decision contradicts previous rulings, such as the 2003 decision reaffirming the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. In addition, the consideration of race in college admissions has been argued to further the values of equal protection under the Constitution by helping to diminish stereotypes, promote integration, and improve the ability of students of all races to participate in the academic community.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other organisations have also recognised the benefits of affirmative action, urging the Supreme Court to uphold universities' ability to consider race in admissions. They argue that race-conscious admissions policies help create a diverse student body, promote integration, and create an inclusive educational environment that benefits all students.
Furthermore, alternative policies, such as class-based affirmative action or plans similar to Texas's top 10% plan, have not been able to fully replace race-conscious admissions policies in promoting diversity. A federal judge also blocked the U.S. Department of Education's attempt to restrict discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, citing violations of the constitutional rights of students and educators.
While critics of affirmative action argue that it is based solely on superficial factors like gender and race, supporters define diversity more broadly to include factors such as skillset, education, and cultural orientation. The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that in certain limited situations, such as "remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination," race-based government action could serve as a compelling interest.
The US Constitution: A Structured Text
You may want to see also
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids consideration of race
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has been central to debates over affirmative action in the United States. While affirmative action programs aim to address historical and systemic racial inequalities, critics argue that such programs violate the Fourteenth Amendment by considering race in admissions or employment decisions.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause has been interpreted to prohibit governmental distinctions based on race or colour. In the context of affirmative action, this interpretation has been used to argue that race-conscious admissions policies or employment preferences are unconstitutional.
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court addressed the use of racial quotas in admissions. The Court ruled that while "diversity" could be a factor in admissions decisions, the use of racial quotas violated the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling set a precedent for allowing race to be considered as a "'plus factor' in admissions, but not as the sole or primary factor.
In Gratz and Grutter (2003), the Supreme Court further clarified that affirmative action programs must pass "strict scrutiny". This means that the government must demonstrate a compelling interest in using race as a factor and that the program is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Grutter, the Court imposed a 25-year limit on race-based admissions programs, suggesting that racial preferences would no longer be necessary or constitutional beyond that timeframe.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-conscious admissions programs at colleges and universities. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that colleges and universities must use colour-blind criteria in admissions, upholding the principle of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision, however, did not impact affirmative action programs in the military or police forces, where "distinct interests" may justify the consideration of race.
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has been a pivotal legal issue in debates over affirmative action. While supporters argue that affirmative action promotes diversity and addresses past discrimination, critics assert that considering race in admissions or employment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The Supreme Court's recent rulings have shifted the landscape of affirmative action, emphasising colour-blind criteria in educational institutions while allowing for limited exceptions in certain contexts.
The Constitution: Final Hurdles to Ratification
You may want to see also
Race-conscious admissions policies are deemed unconstitutional
In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action, or race-conscious admissions, at colleges and universities across the country. The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow court majorities, including Republican-appointed justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, a longtime critic of affirmative action, wrote the decision for the court majority, stating that universities must use colour-blind criteria in admissions. Justice Clarence Thomas, the second Black justice appointed to the court, agreed, reiterating his long-held view that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities.
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 builds on a history of affirmative action cases. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled that a UC Davis medical school applicant was discriminated against because of the colour of his skin due to the school's heavy reliance on a racial quota. The ruling prohibited the use of race for non-competitive admissions that favoured a small demographic of minority group students. In Gratz and Grutter, voters in Michigan banned affirmative action in 2006 by passing Proposal 2, a statewide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2014, ruling that there is no authority for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to voters the determination of whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions. In 2019, a federal judge ruled in Harvard's favour in a lawsuit brought by the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), which accused the university of using racial discrimination in its admissions processes. The judge found that the school's admissions process was constitutional and did not discriminate against Asian-American applicants. The Supreme Court took up the case in its 2022-2023 term.
The Supreme Court's 2023 decision specifically impacts higher education, but it is likely to cause ripples throughout the country, including in selective primary and secondary schools. While the Court left open the possibility that the nation's military academies may continue their affirmative action programs due to "distinct interests," colleges and universities can no longer use diversity as a rationale for taking race into account in admissions. The decision may also make it harder for employers to take steps to promote equity and diversify their workforce. Dozens of government programs that address past and current discrimination and seek to close the racial wealth gap could be jeopardized.
The Supreme Court's ruling in 2023 has been met with mixed reactions. Critics of affirmative action assert that while supporters define diversity in meaningful ways, the implementation is often based on superficial factors, including gender, race, and country of origin. Supporters of affirmative action, such as Columbia University President Bollinger, argue that it is tragic to move away from the great era of civil rights and that the Court's decision entrenches racial inequality in education.
Lawsuit Responses: Waiving Arbitration Rights?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Affirmative action is banned in some states
Affirmative action has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, with critics arguing that it is a form of reverse discrimination against white people and Asians, while supporters contend that it helps to address long histories of discrimination faced by minorities and women. While affirmative action has not been banned nationwide, several states have taken steps to prohibit its use in college admissions and employment.
In 2006, voters in Michigan passed Proposal 2, a statewide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin for public employment, education, or contracting purposes. Nebraska followed suit in 2008 with Initiative 424, which bars the government from giving preferential treatment based on ethnicity or gender in college admissions and employment. Similarly, Oklahoma voters passed a ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public employment in 2012.
The state-level bans on affirmative action have had a significant impact on college admissions, with studies showing that underrepresented minority students are displaced from highly selective schools, and some ultimately enrol in for-profit schools. Additionally, the ban on race-based affirmative action in California public universities led to lower wages for minority applicants and deterred qualified students from applying.
The debate over affirmative action has also reached the United States Supreme Court on several occasions. In 2023, the Court explicitly rejected race-based affirmative action in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, holding that such programs lack focused and measurable objectives, employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. The Court's decision effectively ended race-conscious admissions programs at colleges and universities across the country.
While the Supreme Court has not outright banned affirmative action nationwide, its decisions have significantly limited the use of race as a factor in college admissions and employment decisions. The Court's rulings have sparked mixed reactions, with some applauding the move towards fairness and others expressing concern for the impact on minority groups.
Challenging a Statute: Is It Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Affirmative action is criticised for being based on superficial factors
Affirmative action is a highly debated topic in the United States, with critics arguing that it is based on superficial factors such as gender, race, and country of origin. While supporters of affirmative action define diversity in meaningful ways, critics argue that its implementation often boils down to these superficial factors. This criticism is not without merit, as evidenced by several court cases and rulings.
One notable critic of affirmative action is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who believes that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the consideration of race in affirmative action programs or preferential treatment. He argues that such programs create "a cult of victimization" and imply that certain races require "special treatment to succeed". This stance is supported by the 2006 case of Gratz and Grutter, where voters in Michigan banned affirmative action by passing Proposal 2, which prohibits preferential treatment based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
Another example is the 2012 case of Nebraska voters passing a constitutional ban on government-sponsored affirmative action, known as Initiative 424, which bars the government from giving preferential treatment based on ethnicity or gender in college admissions and employment. Similarly, in 2012, Oklahoma voters passed State Question 759, ending affirmative action in college admissions and public employment. These cases demonstrate a trend of states seeking to ban affirmative action and prevent the consideration of superficial factors in decision-making processes.
While some argue that affirmative action policies give an unfair advantage to specific racial or ethnic groups, others defend its use as a means to promote diversity and integration. This was seen in the University of Texas case, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that diversity is a "compelling governmental interest", allowing schools to consider race as a contributing factor in admissions. Additionally, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977, which set aside 10% of federal funding for businesses owned by "minority group members". The Court recognised the government's compelling interest in remedying past discrimination against minority groups.
In conclusion, while affirmative action is criticised for being based on superficial factors, there are also arguments in support of its use to promote diversity and address past discrimination. The debate surrounding affirmative action continues, with states and courts taking differing approaches to its implementation and constitutionality.
Establishing the United States Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Affirmative action programs have been criticised for being based on superficial factors, including gender, race, and country of origin. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ended affirmative action in higher education, making it unconstitutional for universities to consider a student's race as a factor in the admissions process.
The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, which prohibits distinctions in law based on race or colour. The Court held that affirmative action programs were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, and that racial preferences would no longer be necessary or constitutional beyond 2028.
The decision has effectively ended race-conscious admissions programs at colleges and universities across the country. It is likely to have ripple effects in primary and secondary education, as well as in efforts to promote diversity and equity in the workforce.
The decision has been met with mixed reactions. Critics of affirmative action, such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, have supported the decision, arguing that affirmative action imposes a stigma on minorities and creates a "cult of victimization". Proponents of affirmative action, such as Columbia University President Bollinger, have expressed disappointment, arguing that it undermines efforts to promote civil rights and racial equality.
