Affirmative Action Pros And Cons

Debates over racial discrimination have been going on since the beginning of America’s existence as a land of freedom. Today, arguments over racial microaggressions and affirmative action continue to plague our country. Affirmative action is a hotly contested racial consideration program that favors certain minorities in college admissions and the workplace. Some argue that any consideration of race discriminates against the majority and violates the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while others contend that it takes into consideration the disadvantages suffered by typically lower-class minority families and makes up for past discrimination against minorities. By upholding affirmative action, the Supreme Court ignored data

Therefore, the students are more likely to drop out or fail because they are less motivated to do well. Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow write, “students, regardless of race, are less likely to graduate from law school and pass the bar if they are the beneficiaries of preferential treatment in admissions than if they attend a school where their entering academic credentials are like the average student’s… the dropout rate among African-American students was more than twice that of their white peers (19.3 percent vs. 8.2 percent)” (Heriot and Kirsanow). Because many students’ academic credentials did not match the school they were admitted into, the affirmative action was not helpful to these minority students. In fact, it harmed their academic records and left them less confident in their abilities. Although the Fourteenth Amendment was not explicitly violated in the University’s admissions policy, the use of race to give an advantage to a select group applicants certainly comes into conflict with the Equal Protections Clause. The Equal Protections Clause guarantees equal opportunities to all races, meaning that a certain group should not have a disadvantage or an advantage in any situation involving federally funded institutions. Abigail Fisher should have been admitted or rejected based solely on her academic and

Throughout the case’s journey through the lower courts, the University of Texas continually referred to “critical mass,” their preferred measure for diversity on campus, which is necessary to enhance students’ learning experiences(Fisher v. University of Texas). However, their “critical mass” standard was never defined: “UT has not explained in anything other than the vaguest terms what it means by ‘critical mass.’ In fact, UT argues that it need not identify any interest more specific than ‘securing the educational benefits of diversity’” (Alito). Consideration of race requires a compelling interest, but Justice Alito argues that the University’s interest is intentionally vague and cannot be upheld by a court of law. Clearly, the University’s arguments and compelling interests are not sufficient basis for a decision; the Supreme Court should have either remanded it a second time, demanding an evidentiary hearing, or decided in favor of Abigail