Affirmative Action

Legality, Ethics, and Impact

What is Affirmative Action

Level of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is the policy of
giving special consideration to
minorities and women. This policy is
used in an attempt to prevent
discrimination and to level the playing
field. It can be used in a variety of
different situations. Common
examples include:
Decisions by employers as to who to
hire for a particular job
Decisions by colleges as to who to
accept for admission
Decisions by governments as to who
to hire for contracting work

Not all special consideration to minorities and women by

affirmative action is equal. Some employers and schools
only give a small amount of weight to a person's race or
sex. Others may give a great amount of weight.
The lowest level of affirmative action involves increasing the
number of applicants for jobs or education. Recruiting
efforts are made to bring in more minorities and women to
apply. However, there's no special consideration when
individuals are chosen by colleges or employers.
Limited preference plans are a step up from basic recruiting
plans. This means that a slight preference is given to
minorities and women among equal candidates. It's used as
a tiebreaker when choosing between two potential students
or employees.
The most aggressive plan is the use of a quota system. This
means that a certain number of minorities and women are
chosen regardless of qualifications. White males can lose
jobs and college placement to less qualified individuals
under this system.

Understanding the problem

Political History
We will look at the
most important
supreme court
cases and the
precedents they
have set.

Ethical Viability

Impact

We will look at
whether or not
affirmative action is
ethically permissible.
This section will focus
on the classs opinion,
as ethics are
subjective.

Regardless of whether
or not affirmative
action is legal; is it
effective? This section
will look into that and
we will ask if this
factor alters people's
opinion on the
subject.

Political History

Legal Definition
A set of Procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination
between applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination in
the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational
program or looking for professional employment.

Regents of
the University
of California
V.
Bakke 1978

Allan Bakke applied to the University of

California medical school twice and did
not get in either time. The school
reserved 16 places in every class for
qualified minorities in order to reverse
the longstanding exclusion of minorities
from the medical profession. Bakke's
qualifications (college GPA and test
scores) exceeded those of any of the
minority students admitted in the two
years Bakke's applications were
rejected. The Courts decision ruled that
while Affirmative Action can exist, the
usage of quotas in entrance to public
programs cannot be.

Concurring
Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

provides Bakke a cause of action.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

does not prohibit the university's racebased admissions program.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits

the university's specific race-based
admissions program, and Bakke shall
be admitted.

The Equal Protection Clause permits

race to be one factor, among many, in
an admissions program.

Gratz v.
Bollinger

University of Michigans Office of Undergraduate

Admissions (OUA) considers a number of factors in
its evaluative process, such as high school grades,
standardized test scores, curriculum strength, alumni
relationships, geography, and leadership. The OUA
also considers race and admits virtually every
qualified applicant from certain groups determined
to be underrepresented minorities. Beginning in
1998, the OUA used a point system in which
students were awarded an additional 20 points for
being a member of an underrepresented minority,
and beginning in 1999, the University established an
Admissions Review Committee to provide an
additional level of consideration.
Because of this two applicants, Jennifer Gratz and
Patrick Hamacher, felt they were being racially
discriminated and took University of Michigan to
court.
The court ruled in favour of Jennifer Gratz and Patrick
Hamacher.

Concurring
Opinion
OUAs policies were not
sufficiently narrowly tailored to
meet the strict scrutiny standard.

Dissenting Opinion
Because neither of the
petitioners could receive any
benefit from the relief being
requested, precedent required
that the case be dismissed.

Fisher V.
Texas

In 1997, the legislature of Texas created

a law requiring the University of Texas to
admit any high school senior who
graduated in the top 10%. After
analyzing the diversity of the school, the
University of Texas decided to consider
race as a factor for admission in the
remainder of the freshman class.
Abigail Fisher, a caucasian female, was
denied entrance. She sued the school on
the grounds that considering race put
her at a disadvantage. She argued that
this violated the equal protection clause
of the 14th amendment.
The court ruled that the University was
justified in considering race, as it
enhanced the diversity of the class.

Concurring
Opinion
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in
which he argued that the Constitution prohibits
governmental discrimination on the basis of race.
However, because this case did not ask the Court to
overrule precedent that allowed universities to
consider diversity a compelling interest that justified
race-based admission policies, he joined the
majority's opinion in full. In his separate
concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that
he joined the majority's opinion that the lower courts
did not sufficiently apply strict scrutiny, but he also
argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state's use of
race as a factor in higher education admissions. He
further argued that there is nothing "necessary"
about the benefits that flow from racial diversity in
higher education, so theyre in no compelling state
interest to promote it.

Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a
dissenting opinion in which she argued that the
University's admission policy treats race as
merely one factor in the overall decision to
admit a student, which is permissible under
previous judicial precedent. She also argued
that the Equal Protection Clause does not
require that state universities be blind to the
history of overt discrimination and that it is
preferable that they explicitly include race as a
factor in admission decisions rather than
attempt to obfuscate its role.

Ethical Viability

Background Statistics
The percentages of children who were living in poverty were higher for Blacks (34 percent), American
Indians/Alaska Natives (33 percent), Hispanics (27 percent), and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders
(26 percent), than for children of two or more races (18 percent), Asians (11 percent) and Whites (10
percent).
In 2008, some 44 percent of White 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled in colleges and universities, while in
1980 some 28 percent were enrolled. In addition, approximately 32 percent of Black 18- to 24-year-olds
were enrolled in colleges or universities (an increase of 12 percentage points from 1980) and 26 percent of
Hispanic 18- to 24-year-olds were enrolled (an increase of 10 percentage points from 1980).
In 2008, the unemployment rate was higher for Hispanics (8 percent), Blacks (9 percent), American
Indians/Alaska Natives (10 percent), and persons of two or more races (10 percent), than it was for Whites
and Asians (4 percent each). In general, lower unemployment rates were associated with higher levels of
education for each racial/ ethnic group. The unemployment rate for Blacks without a high school diploma or
equivalent was 22 percent, compared with Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups vii
Highlights 11 percent for those with a high school credential and 4 percent for those with at least a
bachelors degree.
(National Center for Education Statistics 2010, U.S. Department of Education,
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015.pdf)

Do you agree with affirmative

action?
What are some arguments for and
against it

The Arguments
For
To reverse the negative effects caused by
years of discrimination
To make sure minorities are represented
at schools and in the workforce
To create an equal opportunity for
everyone by helping those individuals
with a disadvantage
Discrimination continues to deny
opportunities to minorities and women
to this day
Diversity creates a better learning and
work environment

Against
Reverse discrimination shouldn't be used to fix
past discrimination
People should be chosen based on merit and
not by race or gender
Minorities and women from lower classes
aren't helped by affirmative action, only
those individuals from privileged
backgrounds
Diversity of opinion isn't created by diversity of
race or gender
Devalues the hard work of many minorities and
women
Increases racial tension

Digging Deeper: Opinions on Confronting

Race in America
The way to stop discrimination
on the basis of race is to stop
discriminating on the basis of
race. (Demby, 2013) This
statement was said in 2013 by
Justice Roberts of the United
States Supreme Court in a
reverse racism case in regarding
a Seattle School District. This
opinion encapsulates a lot of
dissenting opinions to
Affirmative Action.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, in

response to Justice Roberts colorblind
statement about ending discrimination.
She said, "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 . . . Race matters.
Race matters in part because of the long
history of racial minorities being denied
access to the political process. ... Race also
matters because of persistent racial
inequality in society inequality that
cannot be ignored and that has produced
stark socioeconomic disparities. (Demby,
2013)

Class discussion
Hearing some of the arguments for and against, Has your
opinion changed?
Were you aware of Affirmative action before today?
Has Affirmative action affected you personally?
How about anyone you know?
Can you offer counter-arguments to the ones mentioned on
the previous screen?

Impact

STATISTICS

After each court case some colleges opted

to ban Affirmative action solely based on
race.
Here are their minority enrollment
statistics