AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN EDUCATION

Affirmative Action in Education



Affirmative Action in Education

This paper presents a critical analysis of three cases related to the use of affirmative action in the American education system. The cases include: University of California Regents vs. Bakke; Grutter vs. Bollinger; and Gatz vs. Bollinger.

University of California Regents vs. Bakke

The Supreme Court struck down the university's policy on the basis of equal protection because of its quota nature, shielding minority applicants from competition with a larger applicant pool. Even so, Justice Powell's key concurring opinion effectively approved the use of race in college admissions in order to promote a diverse student body (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: 438 U.S. 265, 1978).

In its analysis, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to be acceptable, governmental programs that rely on suspect classifications such as race must pass strict scrutiny analysis, meaning that they must serve a compelling governmental purpose and must be narrowly tailored to suit that purpose. The medical school argued that its program passed strict scrutiny for four reasons: to help to reduce the historic deficit of minority groups in medical schools and professions, to counter the effects of societal discrimination, to increase the number of physicians serving in underserved areas, and to achieve the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: 438 U.S. 265 (1978)..

The uncertainty over Bakke continued until 2003, when a majority of the Court effectively adopted Powell's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger. In upholding the affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law School, the Court held that the attainment of a diverse student body was, in fact, a compelling governmental interest and that the policy was sufficiently narrowly tailored to withstand judicial scrutiny. In a companion case, (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003), involving undergraduates at the same university, the Court agreed that diversity was a compelling governmental interest, but it was not convinced that the policy was sufficiently narrowly tailored.

Grutter vs. Bollinger

When institutions of higher education use race and ethnicity as categories in the admissions process to diversify their student bodies, the Supreme Court applies a two-part test to evaluate whether the use of race passes “strict scrutiny” and is therefore constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger: 539 U.S. 306, 2003).

First, the Court must determine whether a policy serves a “compelling governmental interest,” a high standard. The goal of the policy must be especially important and supported by sufficient evidence to meet the first part of the test. In reviewing the University of Michigan's admissions policies, the Court ruled that diversity is a compelling interest and resolved a disagreement among the lower federal courts about whether race is a permissible factor in admissions decisions (Grutter v. Bollinger: 539 U.S. 306, 2003).

The Supreme Court had last ruled on affirmative action in the higher-education context in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Although Justice Powell in Bakke stated that diversity was a compelling interest, there had been a debate ...