In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial 'quotas' in its admissions process was. Describes key court decisions over affirmative action policies in higher education. Affirmative Action and Diversity: Discriminating Toward Equality. February 2. 7, 2. Today, public officials and educators justify using special treatment based on race to make up for past discrimination and to foster diversity. Stories of the victims of racial preferences, however, reveal the hidden consequences of these well- intentioned efforts to manufacture racial balance. Racial preferences are a form of discrimination, and they stigmatize those whose accomplishments are not due to such preferences. Race- based discrimination policies continue to undermine the American Dream, and the only way to end the vicious cycle of discrimination is to ensure that fair and equal treatment for everyone is a reality, not just a talking point. Key Points. The United States Supreme Court is once again considering the constitutionality of race- based preferences, this time in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a challenge to Michigan’s ban on government racial preference policies. While the Supreme Court has heard several cases on this issue, it has shied away from striking down the use of race across the board, instead restricting the use of such race- based policies to “achieve diversity” while encouraging states to transition to race- neutral alternatives to meet that goal. This time, the debate over race- based preferences came to the Court via Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a case that challenges Michigan. Seven other states have passed similar measures ending race- based policies, and the Court. Origins of Affirmative Action. The term . Kennedy in 1. Executive Order 1. After the passage of the 1. Civil Rights Act, Kennedy. Relying on allowances in Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act, federal, state, and local governments instituted special racial boosts and preferences with the goal of increasing minority representation in education and employment. Over the years, this special treatment based on race has been justified as remedying past discrimination, expanding opportunities for the underprivileged, and, more recently, fostering diversity. As a result of this requirement, BAMN argued, the MCRI violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. BAMN contends that the legal impact and political restructuring of banning preferences at the constitutional level fall wholly upon, and thus target, powerless minorities. Only the University of Michigan Board of Regents has the authority to decide whether or not a person. In fact, an attorney for BAMN, Shanta Driver, made that argument before the Supreme Court duringthe. Schuette oral arguments. When Justice Antonin Scalia asked Ms. Driver whether she could cite any case in support of her racial view of the Fourteenth Amendment, she responded, . Instead the Court has restricted the use of such race- based policies to . As a result, states have emerged as the frontier for pursuing equal treatment under the law. Much progress has been made over the past 1. California, Washington, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma have ended the public use of racial preferences through various means: executive order, legislation, referendum, and constitutional amendment by citizen initiatives. The Court will soon decide whether or not states have the right to continue moving in this direction. Negative Consequences of Affirmative Action The Schuette case is important, and so is changing the law, but even if the Supreme Court decided today that racial preferences are unconstitutional, these policies would linger because public officials and school administrators continue to support them. In fact, they will continue to direct policy decisions until individuals are confronted with the moral and practical costs of treating people differently based on skin color or their ethnic heritage. It is easy to engage this subject in the realm of laws, statistics, and court cases, but the real people who are adversely affected by these policies are often overlooked. The stories of the victims of racial preferences reveal the hidden consequences of efforts to equalize outcomes and manufacture an ever- changing ideal of racial balance. When it comes to typical . For instance, my story made national headlines when I challenged the University of Michigan. At the time of my application, the university reviewed applications submitted by black, Native American, and Hispanic applicants under one standard and those submitted by everyone else under a much higher standard. By comparison, a perfect SAT score earned an applicant only 1. Thus, even though I had good grades and a host of extracurricular activities, the university rejected my application because I had the wrong skin color. In another high- profile case, Frank Ricci, a firefighter for the city of New Haven, Connecticut, took and passed the exam for promotion to lieutenant. The results of this test, however, were discarded by the city because no black firefighters scored high enough to be considered for the open positions. Ricci and 1. 7 others (including a Hispanic applicant) sued New Haven for reverse discrimination, and in the 2. Ricci v. Frank and I both worked hard and expected to be judged on our character and merit. Instead, despite our qualifications, we faced rejection because of an obsession with racial policies. Proponents of reverse discrimination often argue that only privileged white individuals have any reason to oppose the use of racial preferences. These diversity engineers believe the benefits of expanding opportunities to certain minorities far outweigh the costs of using race to treat people differently. However, the personal stories of those who have been adversely affected by these policies. The following are just a few of them. Ashley did not want racial admissions boosts, and she did not need them. She knew, however, that she would get them anyway because she happened to be black. Despite her hard work and impressive accomplishments, she feared ever having a bad day or getting an answer wrong in class lest her peers think she got accepted only because of her skin color. The use of race- conscious admissions policies at her university saddled Ashley with an unwanted stigma based on her skin color. It reinforced stereotypes of inequality and special treatment, forcing her constantly to feel the need to prove that she deserved to be in the classroom. Rather than helping Ashley, racial preferences obscured the legitimacy of her achievements. She wanted to be judged as an individual; instead, she worked twice as hard to overcome being judged for her skin color. Patricia worked hard and made many sacrifices to achieve her dream of being a police officer. However, even after years on the job and having received many commendations, she still felt that she had to work twice as hard as her male colleagues to demonstrate that she deserved to be there. As a woman, Patricia struggled to overcome the stigma of gender preferences. Over and over again, she worked to prove that the promotions she received were the result of merit, not a diversity quota. The shadow of affirmative action diminished her accomplishments in the eyes of colleagues and robbed her of the honor and satisfaction she deserved. She did not need affirmative action, but she still suffered its consequences. Recently, the University of Michigan. Hundreds of students joined in to share the . Is it any less so when it is done by public officials and administrators? Even being a minority applicant won him no favor in the system of discrimination for the sake of diversity. In the interest of maintaining a diverse campus, the university chose to limit the number of high- performing Asian enrollees. He was told he should accept discrimination for the . For David, however, racial discrimination forced him to choose between taking care of his immobile grandmother and moving out- of- state to further his education. Barbara Grutter, the mother of two sons, applied to the University of Michigan Law School in 1. She also happened to be white. The law school initially placed Barbara on their waiting list but later rejected her. Only 2. 0 percent of white and Asian students with similar marks got into the school; however, . The law school gave preferences to certain applicants based on skin color. Grutter decided to sue, and in the course of the court hearings and testimony, it became clear that race accounted for well over a quarter of applicants. Unfortunately, in 2. Supreme Court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, upheld the school. Barbara entered the workforce in the 1. Experts insisted that racial preferences and the pursuit of diversity were good for Barbara and society as a whole. She could always attend another law school, they argued. Yet none of these experts discussed the fact that Barbara was only interested in attending a well- respected law school and, as a mother of two young children, was unable to move out- of- state to attend other schools. The University of Michigan was her only real option, but she was denied admission because of her race. Katuria Smith grew up in poverty. By the time she turned 2. Katuria was desperate to escape poverty, so she took night classes at a community college paralegal program while juggling jobs during the day. She graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington where she earned a degree. With her 3. 6. 5 GPA and LSAT score of 1. Katuria applied to the University of Washington School of Law. Considering her background, she expected to be admitted. Instead, her application was rejected. In order to bolster campus diversity, the university used race as a factor in determining whom to admit to its law school, maintaining separate admissions standards and procedures for minority applicants. The dean later admitted that with her story and qualifications, Katuria would have been accepted had she been a member of a . The university used a computer program to calculate appropriate salary ranges for each professor and awarded one- time pay raises to 6.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |