America has struggled for decades with ‘affirmative action’, the practice that gives advantageous treatment to racial minorities who were subject to discriminatory practices in the past. Today, some see affirmative action as necessary to assist racial minorities to keep pace with the white majority in the areas of education and government contracts. Others see it as another form of welfare, especially when it appears in the form of assistance to minorities in decisions made by college admissions committees. The practice sometimes results in more highly qualified students failing to gain admission into certain schools in favor of less qualified minorities.
Nowhere has this tension been more evident than in the Michigan state-run university system. Two cases from 2003, originating in Michigan, secured the right of educational institutions across the country continue to use race as a factor in admissions.
Photo: ddpavumba / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of several factors in law school admissions without violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled that the Michigan law school’s narrowly-tailored policy which considered race along with other factors, with no quota or predetermined weight associated with the factors, was constitutional. The rationale was that such practice generated educational benefits that result from a diverse student body.
In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan’s process for undergraduate admissions, which granted extra consideration to minority applicants in the form of “points” based on their race, and which process determined admissions status based on total points, was unconstitutional because it was too rigid and did not place enough emphasis on an applicant’s other strengths and achievements.
Recently, however, a new case confirmed that voters may preclude such affirmative action. Last month, by a 6-2 margin, the Supreme Court in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend upheld a vote by Michigan voters to ban racial preferences in the state-run university system, thereby potentially making it more difficult for racial minorities to attend Michigan state colleges.
It must be emphasized that the court did not rule that the university system had been violating the rights of white students with affirmative action programs. It merely stated that a Michigan state ban on using racial preferences in the public school system does not violate the Constitution.
Some view the decision as correcting a practice that put whites at a disadvantage while others believe Michigan has stripped racial minorities of certain rights.
The issue of affirmative action is far more reaching than what transpires in Michigan’s state run school system. However, one thing is certain: regardless of what average citizens believe with respect to the utility of affirmative action, there is certain to be more litigation in situations where affirmative action has been used to benefit disadvantaged groups.
Kansas and Missouri voters have not yet been asked to weigh in on this issue, but don’t be surprised if it shows up on your ballot someday soon.
