The Future of Affirmative Action: A Closer Look at SCOTUS’ 2014 Ruling

QUESTION

Nathan Glazer, the author of the article and book Affirmative Discrimination, deals with affirmative action in employment and two other kinds of governmentally or judicially imposed ‘affirmative action’ or what he terms the equalization of the racial proportions in public schools and the integration of residential neighborhoods. He notes that such racial preference required by the government is against the spirit of the Constitution, the clear language of the civil rights act and the interests of all of us in the United States in achieving an integrated and just society (Mello, p. 310). On April 22, 2014, The Supreme Court of the United States, upheld a state electorate’s right to ban the use of race in public university admissions, a decision that rekindles the debate over affirmative action. The justices, in a 6-2 ruling, said they had no authority to strike down a Michigan law that allowed voters to decide in 2006 that race-based preferences should play no role in public education, hiring and contracting. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have laws similar to Michigan’s. The ruling neither imperiled nor condoned the use of race-based preferences in these states, but it signaled that the high court would not stand in the way. Visit Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban to learn more. Drawing on the cases and statistics provided in the Reading 7.1, Chapter 7 material, and the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) ruling of April 2014, what do you think the future holds for Affirmative Action?

ANSWER

The Future of Affirmative Action: A Closer Look at SCOTUS’ 2014 Ruling

Introduction

Affirmative action has been a longstanding and contentious issue in the United States, aiming to address historical inequalities and promote diversity. The debate over its effectiveness and constitutionality has been a central theme in the nation’s socio-political landscape. In April 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld Michigan’s affirmative action ban, sparking renewed discussions about the future of affirmative action policies. In this essay, we will explore the implications of the SCOTUS ruling and its potential impact on the future of affirmative action.

Background

Nathan Glazer, the author of the article and book “Affirmative Discrimination,” argued that governmentally imposed racial preferences in areas such as employment, public schools, and residential integration run contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the clear language of the Civil Rights Act. He maintained that these preferences were not conducive to achieving a just and integrated society. The debate over the role of affirmative action in addressing past racial injustices continues to be highly contentious.

SCOTUS’ 2014 Ruling

On April 22, 2014, SCOTUS issued a pivotal ruling in a 6-2 decision, upholding Michigan’s right to ban the use of race in public university admissions. The Court concluded that it had no authority to overturn Michigan’s 2006 law, which allowed voters to decide that race-based preferences should have no place in public education, hiring, and contracting. This ruling sparked a broader discussion about the future of affirmative action not only in Michigan but also in other states.

Implications and Uncertainties

State Autonomy: The SCOTUS ruling underscored the importance of state autonomy in determining the use of affirmative action policies. Several other states, including Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington, have laws similar to Michigan’s. The decision did not explicitly condone or condemn the use of race-based preferences but emphasized that the Court would not obstruct such decisions at the state level. This underscores the ongoing shift toward a more decentralized approach in shaping affirmative action policies.

Ongoing Debates: The SCOTUS ruling did not settle the broader debate over affirmative action but instead served to intensify the conversation. Proponents argue that affirmative action remains necessary to address racial disparities and promote diversity in education and the workplace. Opponents maintain that race-based preferences are inherently unfair and inconsistent with the principles of a colorblind society. This ongoing debate ensures that affirmative action will remain a central issue in American public discourse.

Evolving Demographics: As the United States undergoes demographic shifts, with increasing diversity among its population, the future of affirmative action may need to adapt to new challenges and opportunities. Affirmative action policies may evolve to address not only historical racial disparities but also the broader spectrum of diversity, including gender, socioeconomic status, and other factors.

Conclusion

The future of affirmative action in the United States remains uncertain, and the SCOTUS ruling in 2014 marked a significant turning point. While the decision upheld the right of states to ban race-based preferences, it did not definitively determine the fate of affirmative action. The ongoing debates, evolving demographics, and the complex interplay of state and federal policies ensure that affirmative action will continue to be a subject of passionate discussion and legal battles in the years to come. The path forward may involve refining existing policies, exploring alternative approaches, or allowing states to shape their own strategies, emphasizing the enduring complexity of this issue in American society.