A lawsuit brought to the Supreme Court regarding the usage of
affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan once
again sparked debate on the controversial subject.
The 81 “friend of the court” briefs filed by
supporters and opponents of the policy provide an accurate
indication of the vested interest that so many parties have in such
a decision.
All discussion and lobbying ultimately points to an important
question: Does affirmative action still have a place in American
society? ““Â if, that is, it ever did.
Nearly 40 years after the culmination of the civil rights
movement, though, many vocal supporters of affirmative action
believe the policy is still necessary to ensure diversity.
“We have not yet reached full equality,” said
Catherine Lhamon, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Southern California. “Discrimination still
exists.”
Lhamon cited the University of California as a prime example of
what could happen if affirmative action was abandoned nationwide
and as an indication of the lack of full equality.
“Since the UC system stopped using affirmative action
policies, there has been a stark decrease in the number of students
of color on UC campuses,” she said.
Lhamon anticipates similar changes at colleges nationwide if
affirmative action policies were to be ruled against in the
Michigan court case.
“Without affirmative action, students of color feel
unwelcome on university campuses,” she said. “And
without highly respected university credentials, the effect
trickles down to employment opportunities.”
Professor Andrew Sabl, who teaches a class titled “The
Rights and Wrongs of Affirmative Action,” said universities
that are forced into ending the use of affirmative action policies
may pursue other methods to recruit students from underrepresented
groups.
These alternatives may include guaranteeing university entrance
to a certain top percentage of graduating classes statewide.
Such policies have been adopted by universities, including the
UC, where race-conscious admissions have ended.
President George W. Bush voiced support for these programs in
his “friend of the court” brief arguing against
Michigan’s use of what he calls “quotas.”
Policies like the one used at Michigan stem from programs that
began in the years after the civil rights movement.
Even after landmark Supreme Court decisions and legislation that
legally ended many types of discrimination, integration was not a
reality in many of the country’s institutions, including its
university campuses.
Just after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was signed, then-President
Lyndon Johnson, while speaking at an East Coast university, said
legal opportunity was only half the battle.
“We must open the doors of opportunity. But we must also
equip our people to walk through those doors,” he said.
The next year, Johnson was the first to use the phrase
“affirmative action.”
In an executive order, he required federal contractors to
“take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed and that employees are treated during employment without
regard to their race, creed, color or national origin.”
Though the context was different when Johnson spoke, the
language of the clause of California’s Constitution banning
affirmative action, which was implemented via a 1996 ballot
initiative, is similar: “The state shall not discriminate
against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or
group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.”
The end of affirmative action by state agencies in California
has made the Golden State a center of national debate. Has the
state been benefited or hurt?
UC Student Regent Dexter Ligot Gordon supports affirmative
action, saying California’s universities have a
responsibility to reflect the diversity of the state. With the end
of race-conscious admission, the numbers of Latinos and blacks
attending UC Berkeley and UCLAÂ declined.
“We’re really handcuffed,” Ligot-Gordon said
in an earlier interview.
Others, such as Tom Wood who wrote the ballot proposition that
amended California’s Constitution, said diversity is a
worthwhile goal but that “preferences” are not
acceptable.
Some, however, when arguing against affirmative action, say the
policy had its time and place but that it should be ended now; Wood
said he “always opposed preferences.
“(Proposition 209) was the first test of what social
scientists had known for 20 or 30 years”; people don’t
like preferences, Wood said.