Back
to main
Affirmative Action page
In
favor of Affirmative Action
By
Sophie Kim '06
 The
split ruling on affirmative action in the two University
of Michigan cases, described by Justice Scalia as a “split
double header […] perversely designed to prolong the
controversy and the litigation,” highlights the two hallmark
principles of the Bakke decision, and reaffirms the Court’s
commitment to its own precedent. The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality
of race conscious admissions policies designed to promote
diversity in higher education in the law school case, but struck
down the
undergraduate point system as a form of quota, previously
ruled unconstitutional. The message is clear—diversity
in higher education is a compelling state interest, which
justifies
the
use of race as one factor, among many, in admissions
decisions, though
not in the form of quotas which discourage the individualized
review necessarily accorded to each applicant.
In
his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia predicts another
avalanche of litigation, demonstrating our nation's continuing
obsession with race far more than the ruling upholding
affirmative action in higher education. What opponents
of race-conscious policies fail to recognize is that
race plays a small role in the grand scheme of admissions
decisions. Isolating race as the dominant, determinative
factor in admission to an elite university catapults
race to a level that affirmative action advocates never
intended. Writing for the Grutter majority, Justice O’Connor
states that “race unfortunately still matters” in
our society. This message becomes increasingly apparent
and painfully divisive each time race enters the public
debate. What we should anticipate is not more litigation
following these cases, but the Court’s aspiration
that “[…] 25 years from now, the use of racial
preferences will no longer be necessary to further the
interest approved today.” By this reference to
the passage of time since Bakke, the Court expresses
an aspiration -- not a mandate-- that at some point in
the foreseeable future, educational progress and equal
opportunity will render race-conscious policies unnecessary
to ensure diversity. The interest involved—diversity—will
continue to be compelling, but the race-conscious measures
required to produce it will disappear.
In
Opposition to Affirmative Action
By
Dubravka Colic '06
The
Court's decision in these two cases reflects divided public opinion
on affirmative action;
the rulings are a
convenient middle ground between proponents and opponents of race-conscious
decision making. Rather than supporting the University’s
expressed desire for a racially diverse student body, the decision
simply proves that although many alternatives to affirmative action
exist already -- casting a wider net in recruiting, or lowering
standards at the top schools -- a lingering racial consciousness
still burdens the nation. As Justice Scalia concludes in his dissent,
"…the
allegedly ‘compelling state interest’ at issue here
is not the incremental ‘educational benefit’ that emanates
from the fabled ‘critical mass’ of minority students,
but rather Michigan’s interest in maintaining a ‘prestige’ law
school whose normal admissions standards disproportionately exclude
blacks and other minorities. If that is a compelling state interest,
everything is." Calling Michigan’s affirmative action
policy “a sham to cover a scheme of racially proportionate
admissions,” Scalia warns of our unwillingness to let go
of racial considerations when there already exist opportunities
to do so. Rather than putting to rest our obsession with race in
higher education, the Supreme Court has instead prolonged the view
that "race still matters," and created additional hurdles
for the nation on the path to racially neutral admissions.
Back
to top |
