Image CreditIs affirmative action fair?
Step 2 of 4
- Yes? But have you considered...
- No? But have you considered...
… that specific race- and gender-based preferences are discriminatory?
Few have a beef with the general concept of striving to hire minorities and women and to admit them into schools, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts of preferential selection of minorities and women, plenty have been crying foul for as long as these programs have been around.
In an early dispute in the 1970s, white would-be medical student Allan Bakke sued the University of California for reverse discrimination after he applied to the UC-Davis medical school for two consecutive years and failed to get in. The medical school, he noted, set aside a portion of slots for minorities, and the minority students who filled those slots had lower test scores and grades than he did. His case went before the Supreme Court, which wound up striking down explicit quota programs, calling them discriminatory (yet upholding race as a factor in admissions, albeit one among many).
Then in 2003, the Supreme Court ruled against point systems in admissions polices that gave 20 points to black, Latino and Native American undergraduate applicants at the University of Michigan, again finding the system discriminatory (but yet again allowing that race could be loosely considered in admissions).
Meanwhile, states have taken things into their own hands and changed laws on their own, reflecting the belief that affirmative action programs are, in effect, discrimination and should be repealed. In 1996, the California electorate passed Proposition 209, a ballot initiative that banned race and gender considerations in public education and state hiring. Voters have since passed similar initiatives in Washington, Nebraska and Michigan. (In the latter, the initiative was an end-run around the Supreme Court decision that allowed loose race and gender considerations.)
If across the country and in the Supreme Court race-based preferences are questioned and dismantled piecemeal, isn’t that reason enough to believe that they are, in fact, discriminatory?
Step 2 of 4