![]() This legal and political development coincided with a demographic shift on the side of affirmative action opponents. Bollinger would look like for underrepresented minorities.Ĭalifornia’s Proposition 209, which declared affirmative action at state-affiliated public institutions as unconstitutional, presents a compelling point of reference. Therefore, it is significant to analyze what the aftermath of overturning Grutter v. Wade marks the Trump-appointed Court’s politicized yearnings for a liberal backlash. However, this is again uncertain as the current Supreme Court term contains six conservative justices, who have shown vindication for overturning contentious landmark cases if they view the fundamental issues to be “egregiously wrong.”4 Observers contend that the recent overturning of Roe v. Though the historical record is mixed, the legal landscape for affirmative action remained optimistic in the past decades as most states permitted the holistic review process. Both precedents point to “strict judicial scrutiny,” leaving the definition of quotas in the hands of universities to interpret and responsibly self-enforce. Thus, the interests of white and Asian students are unharmed. In other words, when race is not considered the sole factor in accepting or declining one’s application, it can be used to supplant a myriad of other variables. The issue resurfaced in 2003, when Barbara Grutter was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School with an LSAT score of 161.3 In this case, the liberal-leaning court sided with the institution, reasoning that the Equal Protection Clause does not conflict with the perceived educational benefits of admitting a diverse student body. Judicial views on affirmative action remained vague for the rest of the twentieth century, against the backdrop of continued resistance from the white American community. ![]() Therefore, the landmark cases equated the allocation of a specific proportion of spots to various ethnicities as the “enforcement of discriminatory laws.”2 Although this seems like a victory for the anti-affirmative action proponents, the concept remains a paradox without the employment of a quota, colleges still reserved substantial leeway in taking race into account in the holistic review system. ![]() The plurality opinion by Justice Powell compelled the school to accept Bakke’s application since the institution violated the Equal Protection Clause with the use of a racial quota. Bakke, a white student, sued the college on the grounds that UC Davis violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause for reserving 16 percent of the incoming class for underrepresented minorities. In the 1970s, the University of California at Davis Medical School rejected Allan Bakke’s application twice. I argue that if this is overturned, the resulting consequences for underrepresented minorities include the decrease in proportions of Black, Hispanic, and indigenous students admitted to selective institutions and a decline in socioeconomic diversity on college campuses.Īfter the signing of President Nixon’s executive orders on promoting racial diversity in work and educational spaces, affirmative action has faced the legal counterclaim of reverse discrimination. This conflict raises a question: how should the current Supreme Court justices decide on future affirmative action cases in the context of conflicting precedents and major shifts in ideological orientation since the 1960s? Although recent Supreme Court decisions have consistently upheld the conditional approval of affirmative admissions, given that racial quotas are not enforced, the current conservative-leaning court possesses the authority and the majority needed to overturn this five-decade-long legal consensus. Bakke) have been upheld while cases arguing for the inclusion of race as a part of a holistic review (e.g. Regents of the University of California v. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, 70% of Americans believe that “colleges should admit applicants based solely on merit, rather than taking into account applicants' race and ethnicity in order to promote diversity.”1 Court precedents are also ambivalent, as cases that are against affirmative action (e.g. However, public opinion and Supreme Court judgements on this contentious legal issue are inconsistent. Since the era of the civil rights movement, affirmative action has been an institutionalized feature of the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |