Fair Courts

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Fair Courts Archives page.

Diversity: affirmative or anti-negative action?

On June 23, 2003, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action, sort of.

To discuss affirmative action, we must first recognize that the issue brings up terms that need definition (“we" equals those of us at Womenmatter.com, and our readers). For instance, what does “affirmative action" mean? What about the meanings of the perhaps-too-often used word, “diversity"?

Generally speaking, affirmative action is an all-purpose term that refers to various programs which strive to aid disadvantaged groups. Most often, affirmative action programs help women and/or people of color by encouraging their admittance into schools or jobs that historically were not available to them. Sometimes, these programs involve quotas, but often, affirmative action makes race a positive quality, instead of a negative or non-existent factor.

Affirmative action hopes to increase diversity in classrooms and boardrooms.

What can "diversity" mean and why is it important? To some, a diverse group is one that includes and genuinely values different kinds of people. People can be different from each other for all sorts of reasons, including race, gender, class, age, beliefs, values…the list goes on and on. A truly diverse group does not simply represent various races; it includes and welcomes all sorts of differences.

Affirmative action programs focus on race and gender diversity in particular. Some proponents of affirmative action feel that race and gender are the most prevalent sites of discrimination. Opponents feel that each individual should compete without regard for the history of imbalances.

Asking ourselves some difficult questions.

Affirmative action also brings up philosophical questions: Should we be willing to sacrifice the individual for the good of society as a whole? Does a person’s race or sex help to define her or him in an important way? Is discrimination widespread? Are we still feeling the effects of slavery?

The way that we answer these questions helps to determine our opinions about affirmative action. One of us who answers “yes" to the above questions is likely to be in favor of affirmative action. If the answer is “no," then affirmative action is unfair and/or unnecessary. For more on the ideas behind affirmative action and discrimination click here.

Quick history lesson

Our court system relies a great deal on decisions made by earlier courts, building a backlog of constitutional thinking while trying to adjust to social change. The historical record weighs in on all decisions (precedence).

The recent Supreme Court decision on affirmative action echoes the 1978 ruling. Sandra Day O’Connor, who often casts the deciding vote, followed Justice Lewis Powell’s ruling which occurred a generation ago.

The plaintiff of that 1978 monumental case, Allan Bakke, was a qualified white applicant who was denied admission to medical school although minority applicants with lower scores were admitted. Four justices decided that Bakke was the victim of reverse discrimination, and four resolved that the university’s policy was a logical application of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Lewis Powell broke the tie with an unusual twofold decision: that the school’s quota system was invalid, but the use of race as a factor when considering applicants is permissible. The court’s decision resulted in Bakke’s admission to the school and the upholding of affirmative action.

History repeats itself

This time around, there were two cases before the court. Like Allan Bakke, the white plaintiffs of these cases were not admitted to the University of Michigan despite being qualified.

One case involved the undergraduate school, which used a point system to determine admissions. Applicants who identified themselves as minorities received 20 points out of a possible 100, while any applicant who got a perfect SAT or ACT score earned 12 points. The Supreme Court ruled this point system to be a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for any federally funded program to practice race discrimination. Sandra Day O’Connor sided with the majority on this one, rejecting the policy as discriminatory.

The other case questioned the law school’s admissions policy, which considers race a “plus factor," but does not take a systematic approach. O’Connor ruled in favor of the University of Michigan this time, claiming that this system is in line with Powell’s 1978 ruling.

What this means

Universities and colleges will continue to consider minority race as a positive characteristic within the admissions process. Any school that receives federal funding is likely to attempt to adhere to the Supreme Court decision. Businesses and the military are likely to follow the example of the university and deliberately seek and reward minority talent.

In 1978, Justice Powell decided that it was reasonable for a school to consider race in its application process because the university has the right to place value on the diversity of its community.

Do you think that a group is more dynamic when it is made up of people who have varying opinions and experiences? If you do, you may agree with Powell (and now, O’Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) in his idea that people of color may bring with them experiences that benefit the university community as a whole, and the university has the right to give value to those different experiences along with grades and test scores.

In the United States, with our unusual history of both open immigration and slavery, is equal opportunity a national standard or should we think about opportunity as an example of what an individual earns when she or he competes?

For more on the Bakke case, click here.

What do you think? Speak your mind in one of our online forums.

Posted on: 6/26/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top