After Bakke, race may be considered, but only as one of many factors and only as a means to the end of educational diversity, the standard that Harvard has used until now. And it eliminated the use of admissions quotas. The Bakke decision ended what’s known as the “remedial” legal argument-that is, that affirmative action was necessary to address past historical wrongs done to minority groups. Bakke, or Bakke for short, was the first significant downgrade to the big idea that Johnson had put forth, and made legal compliance much murkier. The landmark 1978 Supreme Court decision on Regents of the University of California v. Now conservative activists are drafting behind increasingly hostile culture winds as the country tussles over everything from drag queen library visits to critical race theory. Radical conservative movements have whipped up backlash against various forms of perceived “wokeness.” When it comes to the longtime conservative bugbear of affirmative action, Edward Blum of Students for Fair Admissions has been a major figure, launching an array of interlinked organizations that have expertly navigated the legal system over the years to challenge race-conscious policies in academia, government, and private business. Louis Menand called affirmative action, and the battle over it, the “eternal bone in the national throat.”Īnd the country is in a mood. And there are several other new elements to consider: For one, the Harvard case introduces Asian Americans into the long-running debate, pitting two underrepresented groups against each other and adding a new factor to a conversation that until now has been focused on Black uplift and white grievance. The big difference this time around is the current court, which leans stridently conservative and has shown itself to be comfortable overturning settled precedent (see Roe v Wade). “This is about the pathway for educational opportunity, which is about the pathway to achieve the American dream and to ensure that the zip code into which you are born does not determine where you end up in life.” “This is one of the biggest civil rights cases in recent memory,” Adegbile said. In both cases, a deep-pocketed anti-affirmative action legal activist group is challenging the university’s use of race as a factor in admissions decisions, saying the practice discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. President & Fellows of Harvard College-which is being considered along with a similar case, Students for Fair Admissions Inc v. Legal analysts and diversity, equity, and inclusion professionals are expecting the court’s conservative majority to strike down or severely restrict racial preferences in college admissions-setting a new precedent that could have a ripple effect across American schools and workplaces.Īdegbile is one of the attorneys representing Harvard University in a case that the Supreme Court is expected to rule on this month: Students for Fair Admissions Inc v. Affirmative action as we’ve come to know it-the practice of intentionally considering candidates from underrepresented or marginalized groups in various educational and work contexts-has withstood 45 years of legal challenges, and the Supreme Court has upheld race-conscious college admissions programs in the past, he points out.īut this time could well be different. Commission on Civil Rights who currently chairs the anti-discrimination practice at the law firm WilmerHale. “Of course, anything could happen,” says Debo P.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |