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.

.
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» The Beat

Why Obama's Got "Complete Confidence" In Clinton | State Dept. pick isn't the change his backers believed in. But Obama never really shared that belief.
John Nichols
Posted 11 minutes ago

» Editor's Cut

Robert Gates: Wrong Man for the Job | What we need after eight ruinous years is experience informed by good judgment.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted at 9:40 ET

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama's New Team at State, Defense, NSC | And some comments about why John Brennan didn't get the CIA job.
Robert Dreyfuss
Posted at 8:36 ET

» State of Change

Barack Obama's AIDS Advocacy | He has always said this fight must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.
John Nichols
Posted at 7:30 ET

» Passing Through

Forget GM's Plan -- Where's The Government's Plan? | Until the government adopts policy that creates demand for green cars, there is no evidence that anyone will buy them.
Jane Hamsher

» Act Now!

Power Shift 2009 | Ten thousand young activists are planning to underscore the urgency of dramatic action on climate change.
Peter Rothberg

» The Notion

Custodians of Empire | The Obama national security team is now heaving into view and their motto might be: a steady hand and the same old thoughts.
Tom Engelhardt

» Capitolism

Is Personnel Policy? | How much do personnel choices reflect the Obama administration's policy direction
Christopher Hayes

» And Another Thing

Election Updates --Good News and Not | Details on some ongoing stories
Katha Pollitt