Affirmative Action

Affirmative action in the admissions policies of universities has been, and will continue to be a highly contested topic as long as social inequality exists. To balance the student body, universities have used race and ethnicity as a criteria for admission. Not everyone agrees with this methodology for academic enlightenment, and some have argued that it is unconstitutional. In this paper I will address the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, institutional academic freedom, as well as, the historical, contemporary, and future perspectives, and contexts that surround affirmative action, both domestically and internationally. After which I will examine the following cases; Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003); addressing the opinions of the court, and what they mean to affirmative action on the college campus.

Historically affirmative action was set into motion by President Lyndon Johnson during the 1960's. It was designed to help minority groups gain the skills that their white counterparts possessed, therefore helping them reach a level of true equality. Minority groups were underrepresented in the workplace, as well as, on the college campus. Affirmative action was designed to close the gap, not make an exception based solely on race. Integration has been a forced idea in America through this basic concept of affirmative action, but it has been necessary.

Opponents of affirmative action argue that it is unconstitutional to allow a form of reverse discrimination to exist. To address this idea the nature of the equal protection clause within the 14th Amendment needs to be thoroughly examined. The 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 states that:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall

Any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

Due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Ducat D9).

The issue of race, and ethnicity is not truly addressed by the equal protection clause. It is ironic that an amendment passed into law shortly after the abolition of slavery would not address the issue of race. America could have started moving in the right direction sooner if the government would have made some reference to racial equality within the wording of the amendment. The 14th Amendment presupposes that some degree of equality exists between all citizens of the United States. This of course couldn't be further from the truth. Given the time and context from which the amendment came, I understand why no reference to race was made. The controlling authority at the time simply did not want to deal with the issue of racial equality.

In American society today many people are afforded the opportunity to educate themselves, but the level of education might not be of the same caliber. Educational institutions are aware of this fact and often set policies to ensure diversity is achieved. They should have the right to do so! A society should be represented within the classroom, even if certain segments need a helping hand to get there. That's the whole point of affirmative action. It's like a pendulum that needs to be set into motion. For example, as soon as you expose white people to black, or muslims to christians, then you are making progress and leveling the playing field. We as a society start to realize that we are truly all equal. If you do nothing and let the inequality exist hoping for evolution to make things better, then society starts to go backwards.

The theory behind an educational institutions academic freedom is a strong, and compelling argument. Organizations of higher learning need to have the ability, or freedom, to address class structure, and societal inequalities. Racial and socioeconomic differences do exist in America which affect a student's ability to obtain an education. Until these issues are resolved inequalities will remain within society. By not allowing an educational institution the ability to set its own admissions policies to achieve diversification we are perpetuating this cycle of socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial inequality within society. Obviously this is not a positive thing for a progressive society which seeks to attain some level of enlightenment. That's why it is of the utmost importance that all educational institutions strive to maintain a diverse student body. By doing so, America, and the world will one day be a society living in racial, and ethnic harmony.

Affirmative action within the admissions policies of colleges does not go unchallenged. In the three cases that follow the idea of reverse discrimination comes to light and opens the door to one very important question. Are we replacing one form of discrimination with another?

In the Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), a hallmark decision was made by the court on the affirmative action issue. The medical school of the University of California at Davis had two separate admission programs. One was for regular admission, which accounted for 84 out of 100 students. The other reserved the remaining 16 spots for a special admissions program designed for economically, and educationally disadvantaged students. By having this type of quota system the medical school sought to diversify the student body, and achieve a robust forum (Ducat 1167).

Allan Bakke was denied entry to Davis medical school despite compelling placement test scores. Initially the regular admission program to which Bakke applied had filled their quota, but there were 4 spots open in the special admissions program. Bakke appealed his case to the Chairman of the Admissions committee in an attempt to gain entry into one of these open spots, but was denied. Bakke made a second attempt to gain entry with the same result. Arguing that reverse discrimination had occurred Bakke took his case to the Supreme court and eventually gained entry into Davis Medical School.

The majority opinion delivered by Justice Powell claimed that "racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial scrutiny" (Bakke 1978). If we're not careful, then we are just creating another form of discrimination. Race can be used in the admissions process to achieve a diverse student body, but universities need to proceed with caution. A quota system was not the way to diversify the student body. Justice Powell was the only judge to thoroughly