Affirmative Action

Why Definitions Matter Affirmative action programs grant preferences in admissions, hiring, and promotions Programs benefit groups that are under-represented Programs are meant to make up for past and/or present discrimination

Legal Basis The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying persons equal protection under the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to eliminate practices that favored white men. In 1965, LBJ defended affirmative action.

Kinds of Programs Quotas require that a certain number of women and minorities be hired or admitted. Goals give preferences to women and minorities. Set asides are used in construction and set aside a certain percentage of the contract for minority contractors.

University of California v. Bakke (1978) 16/100 medical school slots were reserved for minority applicants Bakke, a white male, was denied admission twice. Those admitted under the quota had lower MCAT scores and GPAs than Bakke.

The Bakke Decision The Court invalidated the quota as unconstitutional, but implied approval for some affirmative action programs.

Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum Weber wanted to get into a training program for skilled workers. 50% of slots were reserved for African Americans 40% of workforce was black, 2% of skilled workers

The Weber Decision The Court upheld the program, because it was designed to remedy imbalance. A union approved the program; this was also a factor in the decision.

Adarand Constructors v. Pena In the contract to build DIA, money was set aside for minority contractors. Adarand, a white-owner company, was not awarded the contract. Adarand sued, because it was the lowest bidder.

The Adarand Decision The Court ruled that federal racial classifications must serve a “compelling government interest” and will be tested using “strict scrutiny.”

Gratz v. Bollinger Gratz, a white student, wanted admission to the University of Michigan 20 points out of 100 were automatically assigned to applicants from underrepresented minority groups.

Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter, a white student, wanted admission to the University of Michigan School of Law Applicants were evaluated based on all information available in their files, including race.

Gratz/Grutter Decisions Gratz won, because the undergraduate admissions program was not narrowly tailored. Grutter lost, because the Court found that racial diversity is a compelling state interest, and the program was narrowly tailored.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No Seattle allowed students to apply to any high school in the district The second most important tie-breaker was race

Seattle School District Decision The Court applied “strict scrutiny” “The way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Unlike Grutter, there was no individualized consideration of students The district failed to show its goals could not be met with non-race-conscious means

The Future Justice O’Connor, in dicta, said that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary. Today, narrowly tailored affirmative action programs are legal, but not mandated. A California initiative passed that eliminated affirmative action.