The U.S. Supreme Court will once again revisit the legality of affirmative action in higher education. A precedent was set to offset racism in college admissions. Since that time, minorities have broken every glass ceiling.
On Monday, the high court said it would take up a pair of cases that challenge the use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University, the nation’s oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest public state university.
Universities want more minorities in their schools. However, they are accused of using discrimination against Asians (a minority) and Whites to achieve it. Some say it damages our successful system of meritocracy.
ABC News:
Some studies suggest the policies — which consider race as one of many factors when reviewing applicants to further a diverse student body — have had a profound effect on opportunities for minority applicants, which in turn impact their job chances and careers. And they suggest that stopping them not only decreases the number of Black and Latino students enrolling in colleges but increases those of advantaged groups.
“It is a very, very significant threat to the continued constitutionality of affirmative action,” Tanya Washington, a professor of law at Georgia State University whose research focuses on educational equity, told ABC News.
Are the policies discriminatory?
Opponents — including the conservative group Students for Fair Admissions, which has brought both cases against the universities — have argued that the policies are discriminatory and violate students’ civil rights and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
Affirmative Action has existed since 1978. Time and precedent alone doesn’t make something right. Things change.
In the 2003 case Grutter vs. Bollinger, which the cases against Harvard and UNC are seeking to overturn, the court said that the goal of a diverse student body justifies the use of race, along with other factors, in admissions policies.
It appears to go against our Constitution.
The court set the bar higher for schools with its 2013 decision in the case of Abigail Fisher. Ms. Fischer was a white woman who attempted to end the consideration of race in the University of Texas’ admissions policies. In the majority opinion, former Justice Anthony Kennedy said that institutions must first exhaust all race-neutral means before considering race. That included recruitment and socio-economic indicators.
Kennedy’s formula would be difficult to police if not impossible. Affirmative Action seems inherently discriminatory. What do you think?
Do we bring about equality with discrimination according to the color of a person’s skin? Is Affirmative Action still the answer?
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Why would you use race as a factor in a Color blind society? Could it be that Liberals really are Racist? After all most Colleges are run by Liberals.
AA is racist!
A merit based system helped make America great and competitive in the world.
The key is that merit should be based in who and what a candidate has accomplished, not on religion, race, wealth etc.
The answer to arguments for Affirmative Action is to fix the educational system that at elementary and high school levels keeps too may minority students from excellence in education. At the same time drug trafficking must be destroyed. Doctors must be punished for creating addicts.
The other thing to do is stop making laws that lead to the destruction of sound family life. Many Asian students have tremendous family support. Many black students in large cities do not have such support.
NO! NO! NO! America can/should NOT allow the best and the brightest to be considered for college NOR should business owners be able to ONLY select the best and the brightest for employment. What’s wrong with you? It’s MUCH MORE difficult to propagandize and control the best and the brightest!
The court has let us down before. Justice O’Connor’s 2003 opinion was that AA was needed 25 more years. That makes no legal sense.
The use of race as a factor in hiring is widespread. I spent my entire career with that as an obstacle.