ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action

801 Words4 Pages

Affirmative action is a treacherous topic. Our minds struggle to wrap themselves around the controversial policy because of the ambiguity and subjectivity seeping from such vague terms associated with it, such as “diversity” and “cultural awareness.” Thus, we crave evidentiary support and clear guidelines when discussing constitutional law to make it as digestible as possible. Consequently, it is easy to state that affirmative action is simply a lazy, unsubstantiated means of accepting more people of color to make university administrations look good. One of the most pressing concerns that we bring up about affirmative action is the “slippery slope” that it opens when allowed. Suddenly, would universities simply view an applicant by skin …show more content…

The first ascent of the strict scrutiny summit consists of requiring a “governmental compelling interest” (Fisher v. University of Texas 2). What this means is the policy in question must have some governmental compelling interest it is advancing. Now the court in Fisher did affirm that “promoting cross-racial understanding, helping to break down racial stereotypes, and enabling students to better understand persons of different races” constitute compelling governmental interests (Fisher v. University of Texas 12). Because of this, many of us instantly become skeptical, that this jargon is code for universities to subjectively define diversity however they please. However, schools wish for that lenience. Rather, the courts have identified policy after policy that does not promote a “compelling government interest.” For example, quota systems or any system that “increases pure numbers of racial minorities based on mathematical targets” is not compelling enough (Fisher v University of Texas 7). In Gratz v Bollinger (2012), the court found that the University of Michigan’s policy of a complex, statistically modeled point allocation system based on a holistic set of factors including race was not constitutional. In this policy, the University of Michigan altered and improved their admissions policy continuously. Their Office of Undergraduate Admissions devised a set of guidelines pages and pages long, with numerous revisions and correction under the guidance of legal counsel, education experts, and admissions officers at the University of Michigan (Gratz v Bollinger 2). Yet with hundreds of hours of research, consultation, and collaboration, even their complex and carefully crafted points system was still inadequate as numerical points or quotas of racial minorities were found not in furtherance of a compelling

Open Document