This paper examines affirmative action in the United States from multiple angles, including landmark Supreme Court decisions, competing philosophical justifications, and documented statistical evidence of racial discrimination. The paper discusses the 2003 University of Michigan cases — Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger — as legal benchmarks, then contrasts backward-looking and forward-looking rationales for affirmative action. It also presents empirical evidence of ongoing discrimination against Black Americans in employment, before analyzing three major criticisms of affirmative action: the burden placed on uninvolved parties, the quality argument, and the claim that such policies harm those they intend to help.
Over the past several decades, the issue of affirmative action in the United States has taken many turns as a result of legal cases, academic research, and public opinion. This essay presents and discusses these and other facets of the topic.
The Supreme Court of the United States has set legal precedent in many areas of affirmative action as a direct result of rulings made in specific cases. Among the most important are two University of Michigan cases from 2003 that are still cited as legal landmarks. The first, Gratz v. Bollinger, struck down the university's affirmative action policy, which gave every minority student an additional 20 points on an entrance exam that required only 100 points for admission. The Court stated that this system of automatic bonus points eliminated the university's ability to assess each applicant individually.
Ironically, in the same term, the Court upheld the University of Michigan's broader affirmative action policy in Grutter v. Bollinger. That policy used minority status as a "plus" factor in an individual's application, but did not allow race to shield applicants from comparison with other candidates. Specifically, the Court held that "race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in an applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with other candidates." The Court also cited the "compelling" interest the University of Michigan has in fostering racial diversity on its campus. More broadly, several Supreme Court members have stated that affirmative action will likely be unnecessary in approximately 25 years.
When discussing the justifications for affirmative action, scholars identify both a backward-looking and a forward-looking viewpoint. Examining both provides insight into the heart of the debate. The backward-looking view holds that affirmative action functions by lowering standards for hiring, job promotions, and educational opportunities for minorities, women, and others. The forward-looking view, by contrast, supports the creation of greater racial diversity by breaking down stereotypes about minority groups and cultivating successful minority role models who can advance opportunities for others. In general, the forward-looking perspective is the more progressive of the two.
Beyond the legal and ethical debate over affirmative action, statistical evidence clearly demonstrates that discrimination continues to affect Black Americans in the 21st century, decades after the most heated civil rights battles. One of the most compelling pieces of documented evidence comes from the Urban Institute, which conducted a real-life experiment showing that white males were offered jobs 45% more frequently than equally qualified Black males. Both groups applied for the same positions, had identical qualifications and physical attributes aside from race, and answered interview questions in the same manner.
Additional evidence of employment discrimination against Black Americans comes from the hiring records of the Memphis Fire Department. Between 1950 and 1976, the department hired 1,683 white employees but only 94 Black employees — an overwhelming disparity. Furthermore, in 1993, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the Shoney's restaurant chain used color-coded job applications to identify Black applicants, who were then assigned to positions in areas of the restaurant where customers could not see them.
"Three major objections and their logical flaws"
It is the abuse of affirmative action, rather than the policy itself, that has generated turmoil, argument, and problems in the United States. Affirmative action as a policy framework reflects a considered response to documented, persistent discrimination; understanding the distinction between the policy's intent and its misapplication is essential to any honest evaluation of the issue.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.