In his famous dissent in Plessy v Ferguson, Justice John Harlan wrote that the law was "color blind." Recently, Harlan's phrase has found new currency among critics of government affirmative action programs that began to spring up in the 60s and 70s. May the government use racial classifications when it does so to benefit, not discriminate against, racial minorities that have historically been the victims of discrimination? The Supreme Court first considered that question in 1978, in the case of Bakke v. Regents, University of California. Bakke, a white applicant to the UC-Davis Medical School, claimed that he was denied admission even though his test scores and grades were markedly better than minority applicants who were admitted.
…show more content…
The result was a split for Michigan, with the Law School's more individualized consideration of race upheld on a 5 to 4 vote, and the undergraduate school's more blatant heavy weighting of race as a plus factor struck down, 6 to 3. Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Grutter adopted much of Justice Powell's reasoning in Bakke. O'Connor found the Law School's asserted interest in creating a diverse student body to be a compelling justification for its consideration of race, and found the school admission policy appropriately considered race along with many other characteristics or experiences that could contribute to diversity. O'Connor cautioned, however, that affirmative action programs should have some termination point, and she suggested that in another twenty-five years a similarly structured program would be unlikely to …show more content…
The Court, in a 7 to 1 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, found that the courts below gave too much deference to the university and failed to apply appropriately strict scrutiny. Adopting a tougher standard than either Bakke or Grutter, the Court said, "The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity. If a nonracial approach could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense, then the university may not consider race." Justice Ginsburg dissented, finding that Texas satisfied the Grutter/Bakke standard, while Justice Thomas, concurring, would have overruled Grutter and banned all consideration of race in the admissions process. The Court noted that it was not deciding to overrule Grutter because it had not been asked to do so, leaving open that possibility for a future case. The Fisher decision is certain to spawn more
The result was a split for Michigan, with the Law School's more individualized consideration of race upheld on a 5 to 4 vote, and the undergraduate school's more blatant heavy weighting of race as a plus factor struck down, 6 to 3. Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Grutter adopted much of Justice Powell's reasoning in Bakke. O'Connor found the Law School's asserted interest in creating a diverse student body to be a compelling justification for its consideration of race, and found the school admission policy appropriately considered race along with many other characteristics or experiences that could contribute to diversity. O'Connor cautioned, however, that affirmative action programs should have some termination point, and she suggested that in another twenty-five years a similarly structured program would be unlikely to …show more content…
The Court, in a 7 to 1 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, found that the courts below gave too much deference to the university and failed to apply appropriately strict scrutiny. Adopting a tougher standard than either Bakke or Grutter, the Court said, "The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity. If a nonracial approach could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense, then the university may not consider race." Justice Ginsburg dissented, finding that Texas satisfied the Grutter/Bakke standard, while Justice Thomas, concurring, would have overruled Grutter and banned all consideration of race in the admissions process. The Court noted that it was not deciding to overrule Grutter because it had not been asked to do so, leaving open that possibility for a future case. The Fisher decision is certain to spawn more