Affirmative Action Lives

This article appeared in the July 14, 2003 edition of The Nation.

June 26, 2003

In one of its most important cases in decades, the Supreme Court on June 23 upheld the prerogative of colleges and universities to give preferences to members of minority groups in admissions. The Court was closely divided; it upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative-action policy by a 5-to-4 vote while invalidating the university's undergraduate affirmative-action program by a 6-to-3 vote. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote, underscoring, if it needed underscoring, the importance of future appointments to the Court.

The Court's divisions masked what was at bottom virtually a complete victory for affirmative-action proponents. The majority ruled that "diversity" is a compelling state interest, justifying the express consideration of race in the higher-education setting. Justice O'Connor, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that racial diversity is critically important not only for its benefits to the learning process but also because universities and colleges are the stepping stones to leadership positions in our society. In her words, "in order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." And the Court upheld an affirmative-action program that gave distinct advantages to African-American, Hispanic and Native American applicants.

The Court struck down the undergraduate program because it failed to afford an individualized consideration to all applicants. The university applied an across-the-board twenty-point boost to all underrepresented minority applicants, which had the effect of insuring the admission of virtually every qualified minority applicant. This decision will pose a challenge to larger institutions that have relied heavily on numerical factors, because it requires individualized treatment if race is to be considered. But that is a small price to pay for preserving access to colleges and universities for members of disadvantaged groups.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» Act Now!

Coal Country | "This is a civil war."
Peter Rothberg
16 Comments
Posted at 10:52 ET

» The Notion

A Blow to Privatization in Israel (and Perhaps Beyond) | A potentially historic ruling on prison privatization, in Israel.
Eyal Press
9 Comments
Posted at 9:48 ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

Can China Help on Afghanistan? | Beijing wants a broader role in the Middle East and South Asia. Will Obama bring them in?
Robert Dreyfuss
12 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Around the Nation | The week we went Rouge. Plus, Moyers on Afghanistan.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
67 Comments

» The Beat

Health Care Bill Advances, as Harry Reid Trumps Sarah Palin | The death panelist-in-chief rallied her followers to "KILL THE BILL." But 60 senators decided to follow the real leader.
John Nichols
84 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | The "Second Amendment" sale; the raving paranoids of the right.
Eric Alterman