Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Affirmative action, a policy designed to combat historical discrimination, has undergone significant debate and transformation over time.
Initially intended to aid newly freed slaves known as freedmen, affirmative action has expanded to encompass various other minority groups. Twenty years after a Supreme Court ruling held that race-based programs must end in 25 years (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), some minority groups are attesting that racial-preference affirmative action is harming them. The recent Supreme Court decision against Harvard sheds a light on the ongoing dichotomy surrounding the policy.
Racial-preference affirmative action emerged in the United States following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Freedmen faced numerous challenges during the post-war period, encountering racial discrimination and systemic inequality that hindered their access to opportunities. In response to the urgent need to address these historical injustices, affirmative action was conceived.
Over time affirmative action expanded beyond the freedmen to encompass other marginalized racial and ethnic groups that faced similar systemic barriers and disadvantages.
Affirmative action received legal recognition through the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which aimed to combat racial discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson extended the principles of affirmative action to federal contractors, making it a requirement for organizations conducting business with the U.S. government.
Subsequent court cases further shaped and refined affirmative action policies. Notably, the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke established that race could be considered as a factor in university admissions but rejected the use of racial quotas. Additional cases, including Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), affirmed the constitutionality of affirmative action while emphasizing the importance of a holistic review process for applicants.
As affirmative action gained broader acceptance, it continued to expand its reach—addressing discrimination faced by women, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans.
The inclusion of these groups reflects a recognition that diversity extends beyond race alone.
The recent Supreme Court decision against Harvard brought the affirmative action debate to the forefront once again. In Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the plaintiffs alleged that Harvard’s admissions policies were unconstitutional and constituted racial discrimination against Asian American applicants.
The Harvard case highlights the persisting complexities and disparities within the college admissions process. It underscores the need for educational institutions to continually examine and refine their admissions policies to ensure they address the experiences and challenges faced by historically marginalized groups in a way that does not use race as the sole weighted factor.
Racial-preference affirmative action, through legal frameworks and policy changes, aims to foster diversity and equalize opportunities for historically disadvantaged communities.
As the debate continues, it is crucial to strive for equal opportunities and cultivate inclusive environments within educational institutions. Balancing the goals of promoting diversity, rectifying historical inequities and ensuring fairness remains a multifaceted challenge that demands ongoing dialogue and examination.•
__________
Yates is director of diversity for the Indiana Republican Party, a political commentator and a law degree candidate. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.