This paper examines the justification for affirmative action programs in university admissions, arguing that applying strict scrutiny to race-conscious admissions policies fails to account for the lasting educational inequalities produced by historical racial discrimination. The paper explores how socioeconomic disadvantages — including limited parental education and unequal access to test preparation resources — continue to affect minority students' academic performance. Drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), it also considers the university's rationale for achieving a "critical mass" of minority students to promote diversity and challenge stereotypes, rather than simply remedying past discrimination.
The paper demonstrates the technique of distinguishing legal rationales: it carefully separates the university's "critical mass" diversity argument from a corrective-justice argument, showing how the Supreme Court's reasoning hinges on which rationale is adopted. This kind of doctrinal distinction is central to legal and policy analysis.
The essay opens with a normative claim about the appropriateness of strict scrutiny, then builds an empirical case for why historical racism produces present-day disadvantage. It transitions to the Court's actual holding in Grutter, explaining the university's diversity rationale and the concept of critical mass, before closing with the Court's prospective 25-year timeline for reassessing race-conscious admissions. The structure moves logically from argument to evidence to legal precedent to future outlook.
It is unreasonable to judge affirmative action programs under the same standard — strict scrutiny — as other forms of racial discrimination. The reality is that, due to a lengthy history of intentional race-based discrimination, certain minorities (especially African Americans) have not had the same educational and employment opportunities as non-minorities. To ignore the impact that the history of racism continues to have on today's young people simply perpetuates a system that entrenches a race-based underclass. If affirmative action programs and other civil rights remedies are successful, however, minorities and non-minorities will eventually be able to compete for educational opportunities on equal footing.
Minority students — even those whose inherent capabilities are equivalent to those of high-achieving non-minority students — do not generally have the same home-based resources to help them attain high academic achievement. For example, minority parents are frequently less educated and therefore less able to provide assistance with homework and schoolwork, which can be essential for a child's educational success.
In addition, minority students do not generally have the same access to financially dependent advantages, such as standardized test tutoring and homework tutoring, which can make a tremendous difference in GPA and standardized test scores. These compounding disadvantages are not the result of individual failing but of systemic inequality rooted in decades of deliberate discrimination.
It is important to recognize that the university's consideration of race in its admissions process was not intended to correct for past discrimination, but rather to provide a diverse student body. The university believed it had achieved a critical mass of minority students when their numbers were sufficient to prevent the isolation of any individual minority student, to educate the entire student body about minority issues, and to challenge prevailing stereotypes.
The Supreme Court's analysis in Grutter v. Bollinger reflects both the complexity of affirmative action policy and the aspiration that race-conscious admissions will eventually become unnecessary. Until the educational inequalities produced by historical discrimination are genuinely remedied, however, treating affirmative action as legally equivalent to invidious racial discrimination misunderstands both the purpose and the context of these programs.
You’re 65% 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.