Page 52 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 52
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
struck down the use of quotas in the admission of underrepresented ra-
cial minorities. Thus, although the court affirmed the constitutionality of
affirmative action programs purporting to give equal access to racial mi-
norities, and in effect allowed for the use of race as one of several factors
to be taken into consideration when an institution of higher education
makes its admissions decisions, it nonetheless found the use of affirma-
tive action quotas to be impermissible under the law. In 1996, in Hop-
wood v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Univer-
sity of Texas, Austin’s law school may not use race as a factor in making
admissions decisions. This remained the law of the land for the states cov-
ered by the Fifth Circuit for several years. Subsequently, in 2003, the Su-
preme Court issued two important decisions related to affirmative action
policies at the University of Michigan. One of these pertained to Mich-
igan’s law school and the other to its undergraduate admissions policies.
The former (Grutter v. Bollinger) narrowly abrogated Hopwood but the
latter (Gratz v. Bollinger) eroded affirmative action further. In Gratz v.
Bollinger (2003), the Court found the University of Michigan’s under-
graduate admissions process to be unconstitutional because it used a me-
chanical calculation that automatically assigned a set of numerical points
to applicants who were members of underrepresented minority groups.
However, in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court decided in fa-
vor of the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policies and
found that student body diversity is a “compelling state interest” that can
justify the use of race in university admissions.
At the present moment, however, several states specifically prohib-
it affirmative action, and have laws intended to decrease “discrimination.”
These measures are often the result of statewide referenda, such as Cal-
ifornia’s Proposition 209, Washington’s Initiative 200, Michigan’s Civil
Rights Initiative, Arizona’s Proposition 107, and Nebraska’s Civil Rights
Initiative. Ward Connerly, who has successfully spearheaded a nation-
wide campaign against affirmative action claims that affirmative action
essentially constitutes a form of reverse discrimination and a racial “pref-
erence” program. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black Supreme Court
justice, concurs with this depiction of affirmative action, claiming that
his Yale law degree “bore the taint of racial preference” (Katel, Clark, and
Jost, 2013: p. 130). On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly
recognizes the positive role that affirmative action policies have played in
her life, by characterizing herself as a “product of affirmative action.” As
a Puerto-Rican woman growing up in poverty in a South Bronx housing
project in New York City, Justice Sotomayor was not exactly the typical
50
struck down the use of quotas in the admission of underrepresented ra-
cial minorities. Thus, although the court affirmed the constitutionality of
affirmative action programs purporting to give equal access to racial mi-
norities, and in effect allowed for the use of race as one of several factors
to be taken into consideration when an institution of higher education
makes its admissions decisions, it nonetheless found the use of affirma-
tive action quotas to be impermissible under the law. In 1996, in Hop-
wood v. Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Univer-
sity of Texas, Austin’s law school may not use race as a factor in making
admissions decisions. This remained the law of the land for the states cov-
ered by the Fifth Circuit for several years. Subsequently, in 2003, the Su-
preme Court issued two important decisions related to affirmative action
policies at the University of Michigan. One of these pertained to Mich-
igan’s law school and the other to its undergraduate admissions policies.
The former (Grutter v. Bollinger) narrowly abrogated Hopwood but the
latter (Gratz v. Bollinger) eroded affirmative action further. In Gratz v.
Bollinger (2003), the Court found the University of Michigan’s under-
graduate admissions process to be unconstitutional because it used a me-
chanical calculation that automatically assigned a set of numerical points
to applicants who were members of underrepresented minority groups.
However, in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court decided in fa-
vor of the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policies and
found that student body diversity is a “compelling state interest” that can
justify the use of race in university admissions.
At the present moment, however, several states specifically prohib-
it affirmative action, and have laws intended to decrease “discrimination.”
These measures are often the result of statewide referenda, such as Cal-
ifornia’s Proposition 209, Washington’s Initiative 200, Michigan’s Civil
Rights Initiative, Arizona’s Proposition 107, and Nebraska’s Civil Rights
Initiative. Ward Connerly, who has successfully spearheaded a nation-
wide campaign against affirmative action claims that affirmative action
essentially constitutes a form of reverse discrimination and a racial “pref-
erence” program. Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black Supreme Court
justice, concurs with this depiction of affirmative action, claiming that
his Yale law degree “bore the taint of racial preference” (Katel, Clark, and
Jost, 2013: p. 130). On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explicitly
recognizes the positive role that affirmative action policies have played in
her life, by characterizing herself as a “product of affirmative action.” As
a Puerto-Rican woman growing up in poverty in a South Bronx housing
project in New York City, Justice Sotomayor was not exactly the typical
50
