Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action

The concept of affirmative action is in many ways very controversial due to its implications. Proponents of affirmative action make various claims to its necessity; however, the primary defense for its implementation is that it is a source of remedy for past racial inequality that indisputably existed in America’s past. Regardless of one’s perspective on this racially charged issue, it has certainly caused a great deal of legal debate. Moreover, what makes the issue even more complicated is that there are persuasive arguments on either side of the subject’s spectrum.
These perspectives have been exemplified in various court cases. In Bakke v. Univ. of California, the respondent, Bakke, a Caucasian applicant to U.C. Davis Medical School was
Gratz was denied admission even though she scored 25 on the ACT and graduated high school with a 3.765 GPA, which are accomplishments that would have guaranteed her admission if her application was evaluated the way in which a favored minority applicant would be assessed.
Further, Barbara Grutter applied to the University Of Michigan School Of Law. Barbara Grutter had graduated from Michigan State University in 1978 with high honors, a 3.81 GPA, and a score of 161 on the LSAT. Despite these impressive accomplishments, Grutter was wait-listed and eventually denied acceptance. Like Gratz, Grutter’s merit would have guaranteed her acceptance if she had been evaluated under the same system a favored minority would have been. In both cases, race was the defining factor that was implemented in the rejection of the girls’
The Supreme Court eventually agreed to hear both cases together in 2003. Chief Justice Rhenquist, writing for the Court’s decision on Gratz, struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions on the grounds that the system was based on outward characteristics. She explained how the system treated applicants in a manner that valued their race over their individual accomplishments. As a result, the University’s system was in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, in Grutter, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor upheld the University of Michigan’s Law School system because she reasoned that its attempt to foster diversity in higher education was a compelling government interest. O’Connor argued that the racial preferences made in the University of Michigan’s undergraduate system was unique to the preferences made in their law school system. Despite the ruling in Grutter, the appellate did not see complete defeat as the court limited the legality of racial preferences to twenty-five