On Tuesday, the Department of Justice released an internal memo that instructed the department to look into whether universities are discriminating against white candidates.

While the memo does not specifically mention white students, it pointed to programs that lead to “intentional race-based discrimination,” a clear reference to the policy of affirmative action, which President John F. Kennedy introduced in the 1960s to promote equality in education.

The move is popular among Trump’s conservative base. Roger Clegg, president of the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity, hailed the project as something that has been long overdue:

The civil rights laws were deliberately written to protect everyone from discrimination, and it is frequently the case that not only are whites discriminated against now, but frequently Asian-Americans are as well.

In a way Trump and his team are right: there is a serious discriminatory problem in college admissions. However, the problem has less to do with race and more to do with socioeconomic status. Children whose parents rank toward the top of the income bracket are overly represented at top colleges in the U.S., compared to students whose parents come from the bottom tier.

A study by The Upshot earlier this year shows that since 2002, the share of students from the top one percent (in terms of household income) attending elite universities has steadily increased. But the share of students from the bottom 40th percentile and below has slightly decreased. At 38 colleges in America, including five Ivy League schools, the top one percent had more representation than students from the bottom 60 percent.

Why is this the case when some of the best schools in the country provide full tuition to students who are in the lowest socioeconomic class? The answer is simple: legacy, connections, and resources. Some students are given priority admission to top schools because of family ties, while largely ignoring the merit of their applications.

Take for instance the story of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law. Kushner attended Frisch’s, a well known New Jersey prep school. One college prep counselor said that Jared was “certainly not anywhere near the top of his class.”

However, Daniel Golden, author of “The Price of Admission,” claims Kushner’s father donated $2.5 million right around the time his son applied to Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Kushner was accepted. But according to Golden, Kushner would not have been accepted on his own merits

If the Justice Department truly wants to fight against discrimination, it should focus on preventing those with the financial means from buying their way into a top school.

This is where race plays a factor, as minority groups tend to be the ones who are historically financially disadvantaged in the U.S. The median household income for whites is approximately $30,000 dollars more than black and Hispanic families, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center study.

Universities should accept more students whose household income is in the bottom percentile, and prevent those who are in the from the top percentile from using their financial resources to usurp those who do not have the same financial means.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Irony of the Justice Department’s Affirmative Action Probe appeared first on Law Street.

DOJ vs. Affirmative Action

The DOJ intends to direct its Civil Rights Division’s resources to investigate affirmative action policies, specifically what effects those policies have on white applicants. The DOJ may sue universities it believes are discriminating against white applicants. This is an odd use of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which was designed to address issues faced by minority groups in the United States.

Many have also pointed out the irony of the Trump Administration’s crusade against affirmative action:

The people who hate affirmative action because its ‘unfair’ are gonna be really mad when they find out how rich kids get into elite schools

— Ayatollah Cumonme (@Phonycian) August 2, 2017

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action policies was in 2016, affirming the University of Texas’ admissions policy was constitutional after white student Abigail Fisher sued the university. But that hasn’t stopped additional cases from moving forward. Two more, one against Harvard and one against the University of North Carolina, are pending. Unlike the Texas case, they both allege discrimination against African-American students.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 2, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.

Several major Supreme Court rulings came out on Thursday, including what amounts to a rejection of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as well as an opinion upholding the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. This post will be updated as more rulings come out, check back on Monday for the next wave of decisions.

Here is Law Street’s editorial team with what you need to know:

Update–June 26 rulings:

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of political bribery.

Abortion Restrictions: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

The decision: In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive regulations on abortion clinics. Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan to provide the majority necessary to overturn Texas’s House Bill 2. The ruling concluded that the restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for similar abortion restrictions in other states.

Gun Control: Voisine v. United States

The decision: The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it might mean for gun control.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for immigrants in the United States.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: The Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

Click here to read a full analysis of the ruling and what it means for the future of affirmative action.

The Fourth Amendment: Utah v. Strieff

The decision: In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and it protections against illegal searches, allowing evidence that may have been obtained illegally to be used in court.

Click here to read a full analysis of the opinion and how it may lead to more illegal searches in the future.

—

Check back here for additional coverage of new Supreme Court rulings. The final round of decisions is expected to be released on Monday, June 27.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated the date when the next round of decisions are expected. It is Monday, June 27 not Monday, July 1.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everything You Need to Know About the Recent Supreme Court Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

This case has a lot of history

This isn’t exactly a new issue–or a new case. Affirmative action has been in and out of court for years and Abigail Fisher first brought this particular suit forward in 2012. It made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2013 only to be kicked back to lower courts.

It started back in 2008 when the University of Texas at Austin declined to admit Fisher into the school. Fisher then sued the university, claiming that UT denied her admission because she is Caucasian. Yes, you read that right. Fisher felt disadvantaged for being white.

How did that happen?

UT Austin, being the state’s flagship school, automatically accepts any applicant from a Texas public school who is in the top 10 percent of his or her graduating class. That batch of 90th percentile students makes up about 75 percent of UT’s incoming freshman class. For the last 25 percent, the university combines two scores to evaluate applicants.

Alongside SAT scores and high school grades, which make up an applicant’s Academic Index, students not automatically admitted are given a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). The PAI is UT’s way of giving people credit for non-academic factors like race, economic background, and life experience.

Check out this article: to read more about the case’s background.

So what does today’s ruling mean?

The 4-3 decision upholds the use of affirmative action, to an extent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that admissions officers can’t run wild with affirmative action. He wrote:

“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”

You can put your fingers away, we did the math for you. Seven of the eight justices weighed in, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she was involved as solicitor general.

You can read the opinion here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Upholds UT Austin’s Affirmative Action Program appeared first on Law Street.

On December 14, 2015, Serena Williams was named the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” But, despite the fact that Williams went 53-3 in the 2015 season and earned five titles including Wimbledon, the Australian Open, and the French Open, and despite the well-earned SI title for her dominant performance in tennis, Williams’ accomplishments haven’t been without severe criticism and personal attack.

Quite noteworthy is the fact that a woman has not achieved this title by herself in over 30 years–since 1983. Yet, to the dismissal of such an empowering feminine feat and celebratory cause, the public lost their bananas that American Pharaoh, the Triple Crown winning horse, did not win “Sportsperson of the Year.”

Huh? Excuse me for not understanding, but why would a horse trump a person for the Sportsperson award? How does that make any sense? The outrage over Williams’ triumph is actually quite ridiculous–that in and of itself is the outrage–that people cannot support a strong, confident, independent woman who is setting an impeccable example of dreaming, hard work, and success for young women and athletes around the world.

Further adding insult to injury, not only did the haters loudly and colorfully express their disdain that Williams won SI’s “Sportsperson” award, claiming that American Pharaoh was at a disadvantage because he “couldn’t display sportsmanship,” something that can only be done by a person, but critics further lashed out at the magazine’s cover rolling out the royal treatment to highlight the award’s recipient. Critics actually defended and made an argument for American Pharaoh under an affirmative action basis–that the criteria and policy used by Sports Illustrated placed American Pharaoh at a disadvantaged position to show sportsmanship and be the “Sportsperson of the Year.” What? Ridiculous. As the queen of tennis sat on her gold throne, dazzling in black lace, looking as powerful and dominant as ever, the persistent and consistent racist, dehumanizing, and body-shaming critics trolled in. Williams, a developing and trending fashion icon who has her own HSN line and has graced the covers of various magazines, including Vogue (twice), and is no stranger to criticism, took the cynics on in stride like the lady that she is, stating:

I’ve had people look down on me. I’ve had people put me down because I didn’t look like them, I look stronger. I’ve had people look past me because of the color of my skin. I’ve had people overlook me because I was a woman. I had critics say I will never win another Grand Slam when I was only at number seven and now here I stand today with 21 Grand Slam titles and I’m still going.

Serena Williams used a platform built out of negativity, stereotypes, racism, misogyny, and hate to spread a positive and inspiring message to women and people of color–chase your dreams and do not for a minute focus on what other people say about you because they will talk regardless. “You have to believe in yourself…sometimes you have to be your own cheerleader,” Williams stated in her speech posted above.

Her point is proven in the fact that she has consistently dealt with body-shaming critics, some saying that she is too large, too muscular, too masculine, and overly built, which drastically separated her in appearance from her opponents. It did separate her from her opponents most notably in her performance and domination of the sport, and her own opponents began to highlight her different appearance in negative ways. In 2012, Caroline Wozniacki stuffed her chest and behind area with towels to imitate Serena Williams against Maria Sharapova.

Most recently, it has been said that Williams’ SI cover makes her thighs look too skinny or that she is buying into the idea that sex sells and spreading the ideology, against feminism and women, that sexiness in marketing is required to get attention and recognition as a female athlete. However, the double standard holds true–men gracing the cover of SI for the “Sportsperson of the Year” award have never had to worry whether their cover would be seen as too sexy or too suggestive. How exactly is a woman supposed to present herself when she is told she is too large and too masculine one minute and too sexy the next? Is there a happy medium?

Regardless of the haters, Serena Williams deserves to be the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year.” Her domination in tennis highlights her as one of the best female tennis players in history. She is a strong and independent woman who is setting an incredible example for young women and female athletes. Let us silence the neigh-sayers because this queen absolutely deserves her throne.

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Serena Williams Served Up Backlash and Criticism for “Sportsperson of the Year” Win appeared first on Law Street.

As racial tensions become more visible in the United States, particularly at American universities, the Supreme Court finds itself hearing oral arguments on a major affirmative action case. While legal underpinning for affirmative action has been weakening in recent court decisions, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit seek to end the practice altogether.

The lawsuit, Fisher v. University of Texas, was brought by Abigail Fisher after she was denied acceptance to the University of Texas’ flagship school at Austin. Fisher alleges that while she was not accepted other, less-qualified students were admitted to the school because of their race. UT-Austin has a relatively unique admissions process because the school automatically accepts all students from Texas in the top 10 percent of their high school class. In practice, the actual percentage has been slightly lower since a law modified the rule in 2009, which said that UT-Austin must be able to fill 75 percent of the available residences with students from the top of their high school class. Importantly, though, Fisher was not granted automatic admission and was then forced to be considered using the university’s holistic evaluation process, in which race is considered alongside a wide range of factors.

Interestingly, the university’s 10 percent policy has actually helped increase diversity at UT-Austin. The policy leverages the fact that Texas high schools are often racially homogenous in order to promote diversity. Because many of the state’s high schools are primarily black or primarily white, the top 10 percent admissions policy ends up increasing the number of minority students accepted to the school.

What’s particularly interesting about this case is that there is little evidence to suggest Fisher would have been accepted even if race wasn’t a factor. Instead, the case is more accurately a challenge to the use of race in admissions itself and not a challenge of the school’s particular decision in Fisher’s case. Pro Publica’s candid analysis of the case states the subject of the case pretty clearly: it’s about the conservative view that the Constitution is colorblind and no one should be treated differently based on their race. On the other hand, proponents of affirmative action argue that it is necessary to combat the legacy of racism and inequality in the United States, and by many measures those resulting racial disparities still exist today.

That underlying debate is at the heart of the discussion around the case, and it becomes particularly clear you look at the facts. When Fisher applied to UT-Austin in 2008, the 10 percent rule accounted for about 92 percent of all incoming students from Texas. Although she had good grades Fisher did not meet that qualification. Instead, she was evaluated using the university’s holistic review process  using both an academic index (AI), which is based on test scores and grades, and a personal achievement index (PAI), which is based on two essays, the applicant’s life experiences, and, importantly, “special circumstances” that can range from economic background to race.

Based on the applicant pool, available evidence suggests that her rejection was not a result of her race. This fact is put clearly in the case’s court documents, in which UT-Austin notes,

Because petitioner [Fisher] was not in the top 10 percent of her high school class, her application was considered pursuant to the holistic review process described above… The summary judgment record is uncontradicted that—due to the stiff competition in 2008 and petitioner’s relatively low AI score—petitioner would not have been admitted to the Fall 2008 freshman class even if she had received ‘a “perfect” PAI score of 6.’

Put simply, regardless of Fisher’s score on the personal achievement index, her grades and test scores were too low to grant her admission–meaning that race had nothing to do with the school’s decision as the PAI wasn’t a factor. Fisher was also denied admission to the school’s summer program, but the evidence suggests that the same thing happened. For the summer program, there were better qualified black and white students who did not earn acceptance.

Rather than seeking to correct Fisher’s admissions decision, this case is, transparently, about eliminating affirmative action from the college admissions process. The group funding the lawsuit, the Project on Fair Representation, seeks to “support litigation that challenges racial and ethnic classifications and preferences in state and federal courts.” This ranges from ending affirmative action in admissions and employment to eliminating voting protections for minorities. And so far, the group has had some notable success achieving that goal. In fact, it was the force behind the Shelby County court case that invalidated a major part of the civil rights act a couple years ago.

In the last landmark ruling on affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion that allowed schools to use race as a factor for admissions in order to achieve diversity but gave a sort of expiration date on the practice. According to the decision, affirmative action could be used if it was narrowly tailored to promote greater diversity among the student body. In the opinion, she said, “the court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” That was 2003, but 12 years later a renewed push to end affirmative action may move that deadline up considerably.

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether affirmative action remains acceptable or if it should be further restricted and possibly eliminated altogether. Notably, Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because the Justice Department filed a brief on it during her time as Solicitor General. There is a possibility that the Justices split the decision 4-4, in which case the lower court’s ruling in support of the admissions program will hold.

It’s pretty clear that the Justices are not eager to hand down a landmark decision on affirmative action. In fact, they have already heard this case once before but remanded it back to the lower court to evaluate UT-Austin’s use of affirmative action with stricter scrutiny. In oral arguments earlier this week, some of the Justices wanted to stall even further, questioning whether sending it back for a trial could be beneficial. Now that race is at the forefront of political discussion, the court is in a particularly tricky position. The fate of affirmative action programs now hangs in the balance.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Makes its Way Back to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

In our increasingly diverse society, one debate that’s pretty common to hear floating around is about “affirmative action.” Particularly in regards to college admissions, both proponents and critics of the programs have a lot to say.  Read on to learn about the history of affirmative action policies, and the arguments for and against them.

What is Affirmative Action?

Affirmative action is defined as “a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.”  AA has existed since the Civil Rights Movement. It began with President John F. Kennedy’s passage of Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This essentially mandated that anyone hired by the federal government could not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

According to current federal AA law, schools giving race-based admissions must meet the strict scrutiny rule. This rule was recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas. If race is used in college application admissions, then the school (or the government if it is a state school) bears the legal burden of demonstrating that it was done because it is “closely related to a compelling government interest” and “narrowly tailored” to meet that interest.  The school must also demonstrate that race-neutral alternatives are not viable in that case.

The debate over AA was also invigorated in 2014, with the Supreme Court Decision Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The state of Michigan had banned AA policies at their universities. The court decided that Michigan’s ban of the policies did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Schuette decision. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor stated:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

However, AA policies are not consistent state-by-state, and the Schuette case is just another example of the flexibility that states are allowed to take with their policies.

Since JFK’s executive order, AA policies have been modified and refined by the legislature and the courts.  In fact, many sociologists and other experts have reach opposing conclusions about the efficacy of AA on redressing the effects of historical discrimination.  This has led to AA becoming a source of significant political controversy.  AA has been both implemented and enforced at both the federal and the state levels.  Individual states can have vastly different AA policies from the federal government and from each other.  AA is primarily implemented through efforts to “improve the employment and educational opportunities of women and members of minority groups through preferential treatment in job hiring, college admissions, the awarding of government contracts, and the allocation of other social benefits.”

What’s the argument to get rid of Affirmative Action?

Proponents of repealing AA argue that the policy of considering the race of potential beneficiaries disproportionately benefits upper and middle class racial minorities at the expense of poor Caucasians.  Since a larger proportion of minorities are poor than Caucasians, class-based AA would help poor racial minorities more than it would help poor Caucasians. AA can disproportionately harm certain minority groups while benefiting others. For example, Asian Americans have more difficulty getting into top private universities than African Americans, Latino Americans, and Caucasians.  Affirmative Action is reverse-discrimination and it requires the same discrimination that it is supposed to prevent, therefore it is counterproductive. In many cases, it can require less qualified or unqualified applicants to be accepted into positions at the expense of qualified applicants resulting in their eventual failure.

What’s the argument to keep Affirmative Action policies in place?

Opponents of repealing AA argue that ensuring equality of opportunity regardless of one’s background creates the best possible social, cultural and economic future for the people of the United States.  Equality is also most conducive to the strength of the U.S. national defense. Failing to provide such equality would be contrary to the principles that led to the founding of the United States. Some argue that AA should be class-based only.  However, racial minorities of all socioeconomic classes are vulnerable to discrimination and many minorities in all classes become victims of discrimination.  Therefore, in order to be effective AA must be race based as well. Studies have shown that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to be contacted for job interviews than people with “white sounding names. AA has contributed to the creation to the “black middle class” as well.  Finally, studies have shown that minority students are more likely to experience hostility and negative treatment in states that ban AA than in states that utilize it.

Conclusion

Affirmative action policies are a common cause of debate, especially when it comes to our public universities. While they certainly have proved their benefits, there are also valid concerns about the ethical benefits and detractors of the policies.

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.

Additional

Stanford Magazine: The Case Against Affirmative Action

American Prospect: Class-Based Affirmative Action Is Not the Answer

Annenberg Media Center: Fisher v. UT Austin: Why Affirmative Action Should Be Eliminated

Pantagraph: Affirmative Action Should Be Eliminated

Alternet: 10 Reasons Affirmative Action Still Matters Today

TIME: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action

New Yorker: Why America Still Needs Affirmative Action

Real Clear Politics: Good News About Affirmative Action’s Future

Cornell University Law School: Affirmative Action

About News: The Affirmative Action Debate: Five Concerns

About News: Key Events in Affirmative Action’s History

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Affirmative Action

Newsweek: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Affirmative Action Laws: A History of Political Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Gather ‘round, Constant Reader (if I may be so presumptuous with my very first blog post). Let’s wax nostalgic for a tick.

There we go. That should set the mood.

It’s 1987. Hollywood’s been treating the world to some gems: Adventures in Babysitting; The Lost Boys; Nightmare on Elm Street III. On the politics front, the sun is setting on Reagan’s presidency and the Cold War. Most importantly, though, the Washington football team (which shall remain nameless) has made it to Super Bowl XXII. It’s halftime and they’ve just hung 35 second-quarter points on the Broncos — a Super Bowl record. By game’s end, the Washington football team’s quarterback, Doug Williams, would be become the first black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.

Despite Williams’ achievement, the idea persisted that black quarterbacks aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. Years later, this refrain played out to major controversy when Rush Limbaugh called Donovan McNabb, quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, overrated, explaining that the liberal, mainstream media with its PC bromides just wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.

Fast forward to this year. And thank you, by the way, for allowing me a momentary walk down memory lane. It does indeed warm my very gay heart cockles to talk football (usually 49ers). But, with that jaunt I have a point: the NFL appeared to have progressed by leaps and bounds when the St. Louis Rams drafted Michael Sam earlier this year, the first openly gay football player in the NFL.

Courtesy of PopWrapped

To boot, the cameras then panned to him planting an Al-and-Tipper-level kiss on his boyfriend.

Yeah, that disaster

Even more, Michael Sam is black and in an interracial relationship. Boom! Check, check, and check. Who’da thunk the NFL could be so forward? So au currant?

I tried to place the Michael Sam moment into the larger context of recent progress generally. In President Obama’s purportedly transcendent America, same-sex marriage has rapidly swept across the country. Just earlier this year, for instance, Judge John E. Jones III of Pennsylvania’s Middle District struck down Pennsylvania’s same-sex marriage ban, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. Pennsylvania thus became the nineteenth state to effectively legalize same-sex marriage. Last year, the Supreme Court issued favorable rulings in the California Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.

Then I remembered that I’ve only ever lived really in the most liberal of hotbeds, Los Angeles and New York City, and I slowed my roll. In fact, I think we all ought to slow our rolls. While the LGBTQ community continues to march toward full equality, other minority communities are seeing their gains erode. Just look at the Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in admissions to the state’s public universities. (As an aside though, yay for Justice Sotomayor’s blistering, two-snaps-and-an-around-the-world smack down dissent!)

The LGBTQ community is rightfully and deservedly celebrating its recent electoral and legal victories. As a member of the community I have tempered my elation, though, because I feel deeply that the fortunes of “discrete and insular minorities” are intertwined. No doubt, the Michael Sam moment was indeed big; a watershed moment totally deserving of celebration. But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves. The NFL still makes its bones playing to the hyper-heteronormative crowd. Just sit through those Go-Daddy commercials during the Super Bowl. We aren’t yet living in the post-racial, post-gender, post-et-cetera world promised with the election of Barack Obama. Bigotry accumulated over time tends to pervade everything from society’s institutions to even its more subtle, discursive acts of culture. I’ll more fully celebrate the Michael-Sam-type moments when progress begins to happen on all fronts, not just one.

—

Chris Copeland (@ChrisRCopeland) is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street.

Featured image courtesy of [VJnet via Flickr]

Chris Copeland

Chris Copeland is a staff attorney at a non-profit organization in the Bronx, a blogger, and a California ex-pat living in Brooklyn. When he’s not reading, writing, or watching horror, he explores the intersection of race and LGBT issues with Law Street. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LGBT Community Makes Great Strides, Other Minority Groups’ Rights Eroding appeared first on Law Street.

Since the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action in Michigan earlier this week (which we covered back when it was argued in October), there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Some say the justices ignored very real problems of race in America, turning a blind eye to such a serious topic, while others say the court left it to the hands of the voters. But what many people are failing to overlook is that this decision does not speak to the merits or disadvantages of affirmative action: it looks at what a state’s rights are when deciding how to apply affirmative action.

Before we get into the semantics of the ruling, it’s important to go over some background of affirmative action cases.

Way back in 1978, the Supreme Court decided setting racial quotas was unconstitutional in Regents v. Bakke. Basically, a college could not decide to admit X percent of students of a certain race based on their race alone. The court upheld, however, the larger idea of affirmative action- saying schools could consider race as one of many factors in admissions. That holds true to this day.

Fast forward to 2003, when the University of Michigan was sued in Gratz v. Bollinger because it has applied an admissions policy in which minority students are awarded certain “points” based on their race. The Court held that this was unconstitutional because it did not allow the school to look at applicants as individuals, rather, assigned preferential treatment based on race alone.

But that is not all- also in 2003, the University of Michigan Law School was sued in Grutter v. Bollinger, under similar claims, that the University’s consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. But the Law School’s admissions policies regarding race (which were seemingly less stringent than the undergrad ones) were upheld and Constitutional.

So what’s a state to do after its premier educational institutions keep getting sued?

Outlaw affirmative action, of course. And Michigan did just that in 2006, when 58 percent of the state voted in favor of outlawing it. Needless to say, this caused a lot of controversy among people who hold that affirmative action is a helpful and necessary way of ensuring equality in schools. So people sued the state, a lower court upheld the ban as legal, the ruling was appealed, and the appellate court determined it was unconstitutional. And that brings us to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

The most important thing to remember about this case is that it does not decide anything about affirmative action on its own- since 1978, we have known that it is legal to consider race in admissions. This case, as stated in the opinion, deals with “whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.”

Basically, the Court had to look at whether voters in a state could decide that they do not want to take affirmative action policies into account at their state colleges – not whether or not affirmative action is good or bad, or even constitutional in its own right. Michigan is not the only state to have outlawed affirmative action, it joins seven others: California, Arizona, Florida, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. The only thing this ruling has done is say that citizens have the ability to enact laws in their states that make affirmative action illegal. Those laws may not be agreeable, and many people may take exception to them; but the Court has ruled that states are able to decide on policies like these for themselves.

But when the 6-2 decision affirming Michigan’s right to outlaw affirmative action came out, there was an uproar from people who claimed the courts were refusing to take minority rights into consideration. But that’s not what the Court was doing. It was not commenting on whether or not affirmative action should be implemented- that is up to the members of each state. Furthermore, the Court’s ruling also has no bearing on the affirmative action policies of private universities within these states.

When the Supreme Court makes decisions, it is important to keep in mind their decisions are based off of legal statutes, not emotions or what “feels right.” It is easy to want to Supreme Court to rule a certain way, especially for programs like affirmative action which have been lauded by many as a step in the right direction for racial equality. But it is not right to expect them to do so, if there is a legal precedent behind an opposite outcome.

[Michigan Ruling] [Regents v. Bakke] [Gratz v. Bollinger] [Grutter v. Bollinger] [USA Today]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marty Hogan via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.

At first glance this post is about Abigail Fisher — but it really isn’t. What it’s about is an epidemic in modern American society. That disease is entitlement. The entitlement that led one girl, when she was denied to one college, to sue and attempt to invalidate an entire system that is bit-by-tiny-bit attempting to ease the wounds of discrimination in this country.

I’ll admit from the outset that I am not the most objective person when it comes to the issue of Affirmative Action. I am Black. As sure as the day is long and Martin Schoeller photographs make you want to exfoliate, I am Black. Now I am not saying that every Black person has to be in favor of Affirmative Action policies to be considered “down.” What I am saying is that my unique experience of Blackness in America makes me inclined to agree with one of my favorite Malcolm X quotes:

“You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you’re making progress.”

Progress means moving forward. In the context of higher education at least, one of the best and most effective means of ameliorating the effects of historical discrimination are policies that take into account race as one of several factors in determining someone’s eligibility for admission to a college or university. That’s what the Supreme Court has said and I am inclined to agree with the final arbiters of the Constitution even if one of them happens to be Clarence Thomas.

The latest development in what many thought was a settled issue of Constitutional Law after Grutter v. Bollinger laid down the standard of acceptable race-based admissions policies in higher education was the curious case of Abigail Fisher. Her denial of admission into the University of Texas at Austin spurred a lawsuit that climbed all the way up the ladder and landed at the Supreme Court in October 2012. Her suit, in brief, proceeds thusly: 1) she applied to UT Austin; 2) she was denied admission; 3) she actually went to another college; 4) but somewhere along the way she sued the university. Those are the broad strokes. Yet more important than her story are what the grounds of her suit mean practically. That’s what I’d like to examine here.

Entitlement: n. the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges).

I wanted to begin with that definition. It’s a feeling many of us have felt from time to time. Myself included. The Apple Care Lady. All of us. But the measure of maturity, I think, is how we step out of ourselves and our own selfish desires to get what we feel we are owed, and take a long hard look at whether we have earned the desired thing. Or rather, whether we deserve that thing. Abigail Fisher, after having been denied admission, instead of looking inward and wondering about her own shortcomings, decided that the primary reason, or even the only reason, that she had been denied was because she had not been born a “minority.” But was it really her race? Would she have gotten in had she been Black? I want to examine these assumptions that are at the very heart of her suit, and the overall discussion of Affirmative Action.

Assumption 1: Abigail Fisher’s Qualifications were good enough to get into UT.

According to Miss Fisher’s own brief before the Supreme Court, “UT is a highly selective university, receiving applications from approximately four times more students each year than it can enroll in its freshman class.” The question then narrows to whether Abigail’s scores and experiences were good enough to  beat out thousands of others.

Her stats: a) SAT: 1180 out of 1600; b) Cumulative High School GPA: 3.59′ c) not in the top ten percent of her high school graduating class.

I’ll let the University of Texas explain the significance of these numbers:

According to the hard data from Abigail Fisher’s admissions file, she would not have been admitted to the University due to the stiff competition of the applicant pool that year. Being in the top ten percent of her class would have guaranteed her admission. She was even denied to the provisional summer program that the University offers for those on the cusp of admission. More’s the pity. Maybe she should have worked harder or studied more.

Assumption 2: Other, less qualified applicants, were admitted because of their race.

There is simply no way to prove this. In her brief, Miss Fisher merely conclusively asserts, “[a]lthough [Fisher’s] academic credential exceeded those of many minority candidates, UT denied her application.” Well, yeah, sure, but still. Wait, let me give a more cogent answer. I am not an admissions professional at a flagship university. Neither is Abigail Fisher. Or her attorneys. The difference between us is that she seems not to realize this. I can conceptually understand that great schools could fill their classrooms solely with those who have 4.0 GPA and top SAT scores, but it is a reasoned and considered choice by the University to consider more than that. The admissions policy attempts to assign numerical values to often subjective factors…and the University is entirely within its right to do so.

Assumption 3: Other forms of non-merit based admission policies are totally acceptable.

This is perhaps the most sinister assumption that underlies the discussions of Affirmative Action programs. I might — MAYBE — be able to rationally accept the argument that race should not be considered in admission because it has nothing to do with the student’s merit. But there are other metrics — that have nothing to do with academic merit — that are used all the time to the benefit of those from populations that have been historically favored. Metrics like legacy clauses. Sports scholarships. Opponents of Affirmative Action don’t take their views to their logical endpoint. Their road only goes so far as to criticize non-merit-based policies that benefit minorities, and not those that benefit those of European descent.

The Supreme Court of the United States remanded Fisher’s case back to the Fifth Circuit, essentially punting on third and six instead of going for it and resolving finally the position of Affirmative Action in higher education. Yet I wonder less about the legal merits of this case and more about what it says about the American people. Affirmative Action, to me, seems a commitment on the part of our legal system to favor those who had been disfavored. Affirmative Action isn’t crippling the White race, in the same way Affirmative Action hasn’t elevated minorities into the stratosphere in terms of academic achievement. The cruel truth of it all is that those who had been most favored by every aspect of society for literally centuries feel so threatened by such insignificant and limited favor of the downtrodden classes in school admissions.

If that’s not entitlement, I don’t know what is.

—

Dominic Jones (@DomPerinyon) is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films.

Featured image courtesy of [Reid Sullivan via Wikipedia]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Entitlement appeared first on Law Street.

While most of my posts concern the intersection of race and criminal law in America, I could not help but be moved to write this post on a video that has gained national attention. This video, featuring some of the Black male students at the University of California, Los Angeles, is a veritable cry for help that represents the pathos of Black males throughout most of the nation’s prestigious institutions of higher learning. Take a look at this powerful video first.

There are some stunning statistics in this video that bear repeating. Of the more than 19,000 male  students at the University, only a scant 3.3% are Black. Also, of the 48 Black male freshmen who enrolled last fall, only about 35 are expected to graduate. Some might wonder what the problem with these numbers are. They might point to the demographics of the state, or the admissions policies of the University. Or they might even go so far as to say all of the “qualified” Black males who applied got it, and there just must not have been thousands of qualified Black males applying to the school.

All of these responses are bullshit.

According to the Census Bureau, the total percentage of California’s population that is African American is 6.6%. So even if proportional representation meant true diversity [which it decidedly does not], the University would still be behind the curve. The admission’s policies of the University are of course set by the institution, and, since it is a school in the University of California system, governed by the Constitution of the State of California as a state entity. That’s where the problem lies. The video raises questions about the true meaning of “diversity” and whether Affirmative Action policies can, or even should, play a part in achieving that elusive goal.

Before November 1996, when California’s Proposition 209 passed, the public universities in California could pursue affirmative action policies consistent with the California Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue. The most famous case dealing with California was Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). There, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Affrmative Action policies in a general sense, but specifically invalidated the quota system that was in place at the time at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. The medical school there was setting aside 16 of the 100 seats in the medical school for African Americans. The Supreme Court squarely rejected this quota system. What emerged in later cases from the Court as acceptable were Affirmative Action policies that considered race in a nuanced way and that aimed for a “critical mass” of minorities such that the diversity pursued educational goals of limiting minority isolation and tokenism.

Nonetheless, in 2009, the citizens of California decided enough was enough when it came to helping those minorities that had historically been systematically excluded from the avenues of higher education, and passed Prop. 209. This ballot initiative banned state institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. Proponents of the the initiative considered it consonant with the Civil Rights Act in banning discrimination. However, it had the terrible effect of banning Affirmative Action policies in California’s public universities. This is how we got here.

Despite Affirmative Action being under attack across the country, officials at UCLA still want to pursue diversity. They lament the statistics highlighted in the video. But their hands are chained by the change to the California Constitution initiated by Prop. 209. More’s the pity.

Diversity is extolled as a virtue in every aspect of society, from academia to the private sector. But I ask, do they want diversity for the inherent benefit of expanding horizons and increasing cross-cultural understanding? Or do they want brown and black faces for brochures? The students in the video suggest the latter. In my own experience, having attended “diversity receptions” at BigLaw firms my 1L year, the answer is complicated. Have I felt that some of those firms truly valued diversity: yes. Have I also felt the push for diversity was an utter joke upon entering the reception and meeting the one female partner and two Black associates: yes. In higher education, diversity should be pursued even more vigorously than in the workplace. It is in the classroom that people engage in the freest flow of ideas and where one, often in close contact by living in dorm rooms with others, can most reach out and experience the life and culture of another. Having only a few token minorities does not accomplish this goal.

The sentiment portrayed in the video has been reinforced in my own experience. I attended a Historically Black College. Some of my other Black friends attended what we call PWI or Predominantly White Institutions. Yet it is often these PWIs that identify themselves as paragons of “diversity” despite many of the nation’s top state schools being mostly white. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is 66% White, for example. The University of Virginia: 61% white. The University of Georgia: 74% white. UCLA’s highest demographic is Asian. UC Berkeley: 37% Asian and 30% White. Despite the admitted mix, many of these institutions have minority enrollment in single-digit percentages. Not quite the melting pot they tout themselves to be.

More subjectively, the video illustrates the pervasive feelings of isolation that can stem from such limited minority enrollment. The men in the video make the analogy to Rosa Parks. Still more troubling can be the feeling of spokesmanship. In this instance, one must always signal that one is not speaking on behalf of the entire race. Similarly, one often encounters tokenism – the feeling from Whites that the minority was less qualified and got in solely based on race – whether or not race-based Affirmative Action policies are even legal or practiced a the institution.

The video has gained national attention and in many ways has fed the flame of the debate over Affirmative Action and the place minorities have in higher education. But have no fear, Black men out there, as the video poignantly notes, if you can play football extremely well, you can write your own ticket to just about any flagship state school in the nation.

Better start practicing, brothas.

—

Featured image courtesy of [BrokenSphere via Wikipedia]

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Cry For Help appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the Supreme Court is dealing with the second case to challenge affirmative action in two years—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Last session, Fisher v. University of Texas made headlines when the Supreme Court did not decide on the merits of the case, but rather determined that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny that the precedents of Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the Univ of Cal. v. Bakke required. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, and in doing so, chose not to take up the constitutionality of using race as a factor in admissions. Affirmative action remained constitutional.

This new case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action also deals with affirmative action, but from a completely different angle. In 2006, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative that banned state-funded schools from using affirmative action policies. They argued that affirmative action policies are discriminatory because they treat people of different races differently, and that striking down such a policy removed that potential for discrimination. They are not the only state to make this choice—Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, California, and Florida also ban racial preferences in admissions. The US Court of Appeals for the 6^th Circuit struck down this ballot initiative, basing their precedents on other cases in which changes to a political process were deemed discriminatory.

There are a few obvious questions that arise from this case. First, what effect has this ban on affirmative action yielded? Does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement for states? And finally, what will the justices decide?

Let’s start with the easiest of those three questions: what effect can we see in Michigan from the affirmative action ban? The answer: African-American and Latino enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped since the 2006 ban. But something significantly more interesting is occurring in some of the other states that have banned affirmative action. Richard D. Kahlenberg found that many of these states adopted race-neutral policies, such as banning legacies, admitting students at the top of their high school class all across a given state, and programs for better financial aid. These states with race neutral strategies had the same levels, or higher, of minority enrollment as they did before banning affirmative action. Proponents of these policies argue that we need to focus on differences in socioeconomic class disparity, not just race. They cite the fact that poor white students only score marginally better on SATs than poor minority students as proof.

Next, does the Supreme-Court-approved constitutionality of affirmative action make it an option or a requirement? There’s no easy answer to this question, because any argument becomes somewhat cyclical. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, also focused on Michigan, the Supreme Court stated that certain affirmative action policies that aimed to promote class diversity and evaluated numerous factors for every candidate were not unconstitutional as they did not take the form of a quota system outlawed by Regents of the Univ. of Cal. Vs. Bakke. However that does not mean that states must allow affirmative action, just that they may.

Affirmative action is a good thing. It allows greater opportunities, greater diversity, and helps thousands of students each year get into great schools where they are able to thrive. And we do know it is constitutional—the Supreme Court has affirmed as much. But will the Supreme Court strike down Michigan’s ban? Probably not. Despite recent liberal wins, this is still a conservative Court. The plaintiff, Attorney General of Michigan Bill Schuette is arguing that Michigan is being nondiscriminatory by banning policies that do not treat all races the same. The defense, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is proposing that affirmative action is a mechanism in which to further equal protection and equal treatment. For this court, particularly for constant swing justice Anthony Kennedy, that argument probably won’t hold up.

There’s more work to be done in ensuring that every child, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic class, or any other criteria that has been marginalized in our society can receive the higher education that they deserve. Whether it is accomplished through affirmative action, race-neutral policies, or something else entirely, that is a laudable goal that will take time and effort, but will ultimately benefit us all.

[Slate]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action To Spar With A Conservative Court appeared first on Law Street.