Opinion: Too Tired to Talk About Affirmative Action

Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 02:36 PM

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and  Elena Kagan attend President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan attend President Obama's State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012. (Getty)

Everyone was talking about affirmative action on Wednesday. But my pen was silent, as eight Supreme Court justices fielded arguments in a case challenging race-conscious admission to public colleges (Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because she worked on the case earlier as an Obama administration lawyer.) I was silent because I am tired.

I am tired of talking about affirmative action. I am tired of explaining why it is still necessary in the 21st Century. I am tired of the divisiveness of the discussion. I am tired of having to justify my place at the table. Just tired.

I was born ten years after Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white children unconstitutional. Brown overturned an earlier decision from 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson, which had previously allowed state-sponsored segregation in all contexts.

In 1964, President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. This may seem like ancient history. But it isn’t. Most Americans alive today were alive when this law was passed. It prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It was a hopeful time for a black child to be born in America. And I was a hopeful black child.

The term “affirmative action” comes from a 1965 Executive Order issued by President Johnson. It required (and still requires) government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. And contractors must take specific measures to ensure equality in hiring and must document their efforts. On Oct. 13, 1967, the order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender. In 1969, President Nixon reinforced the policy: "We would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment." It was all good.

But I don't really remember much of that. Instead, I came of age in the shadow of the Bakke decision. Bakke came down during my girlhood and awakened me to the American obsession with race. This was one of those big landmark Supreme Court decisions that had people marching on the courthouse steps waving their placards, and camera crews in position to catch the parties as they emerged from the arguments.

In Bakke the Justices placed limitations on affirmative action for the first time, to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. Affirmative action was unfair, the Court said, if it led to "reverse discrimination." I decided to become a lawyer.

There were several important affirmative action cases in my law school years culminating in the one that came down the year I graduated from Law School, City of Richmond v. Croson, a challenge to affirmative action programs, at the state and local levels. The Court considered a Richmond program setting aside 30 percent of city construction funds for black-owned firms and found affirmative action to be a "highly suspect tool. The Court held that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota."

For the first time, the justices held affirmative action must be subject to "strict scrutiny" to “smoke out” illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. Affirmative action was under assault.

During my time in the Clinton White House, President Clinton stepped to the plate, reaffirming the need for affirmative action. He acknowledged that, in a multicultural society, the issue had become a complicated one, and called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved. But he cited the continuing existence of systematic discrimination in the United States.

Then in 2004, in the most significant case since Bakke, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor struck a blow in favor of affirmative action. In a 5-4 decision the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy in the context of higher education. The Justices ruled that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."

In fact, in that case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Conner said affirmative action at universities might be necessary for another quarter-century to ensure that classrooms reflect the nation's racial diversity.

But we are too restless about race in America, to let the law lie for that long. Here we are a less than a decade later, with Fisher v. University of Texas, in which a young white woman (Abigail Fisher) is challenging the University of Texas at Austin, which employs a two-pronged admissions system. The school fills 80 percent of its freshman slots by admitting applicants who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school class. This first method focuses strictly on grades (Fisher did not pass this bar). The school then admits the remaining 20 percent of students by considering their academic and personal achievement. These attributes can include extracurricular activities, work experience, leadership potential, and personal background – including race and class (This forms the basis of Fisher’s challenge).

The case will turn largely on the court’s reading of the aforementioned decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, and the decision can go one of three ways:

1. A holding that leaves things more or less as they are;

2. A holding that further limits consideration of race or ethnicity;

3. A landmark ban on race-based admissions policies

Of course, nothing the Supreme Court does is ever that simple. Which is why I decided to pick up my pen today. To simplify. And calm the debate. First of all, I do not like the tone. The divisiveness. The scrapping for the increasingly small pie. But clarification is necessary.

Obviously, if the Court leaves well enough alone, or issues across-the-board ban on affirmative action, that will be easy to read. But the Justices are most likely to stake out a position somewhere in between.

For example, the Court may very well affirm Grutter, with all due deference to Justice O’Connor, who has retired and been replaced by Justice Alito, no friend to affirmative action. The Justices could then, within the boundaries of Grutter, tighten the requirements imposed upon colleges and universities that seek to employ affirmative action to achieve diversity. Indeed, the Justices could make the test for race-based admissions so strict that no institution could ever pass it. That kind of ruling could be akin to an outright ban on affirmative action.

I’ve been through that exhausting tap dance before. In 1997, a state ban on all forms of affirmative action was passed in California: "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." Proposed in 1996, the controversial ban had been delayed in the courts for almost a year before it went into effect. At the time, I was a member of the Board of Directors of the Alumni Association of the Berkeley Law School. So despite the federal preference for affirmative action, at the time, our hands were tied. The voters had spoken. The complexion of the law school changed remarkably, from one year, to the next.

That experience taught me that, while educators on both sides of the affirmative action aisle will say they value diversity, we define it differently, depending on our backgrounds, and educational experiences and goals. And achieving diversity, however one defines it, is not as easy as one might think. UC Berkeley has gone to great lengths to achieve diversity after Proposition 209, with mixed results. And is there no guarantee that every university would distribute admissions among all public high schools, recruit aggressively in poorer communities or give some consideration to low-income applicants or those from underperforming schools, in order to achieve diversity. And, even if they do, might not some enterprising young woman, backed by a conservative think tank, challenge such measures as unconstitutional in five years time? I'm getting tired just thinking about it.

A decision in Fisher will be issued until next year.


More in:

Comments [9]


"Seriously? Since the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the GOP has been the home of racists and segregationists. Try googling 'Nixon southern strategy' Odd bedfellows for sure but true"

Since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 supported by more Republicans than Democrats, segregation has been banned but while it existed it was strongly supported by the Democratic Party machine in the South.

"Try googling" Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural which was the first "southern strategy" meant to heal a nation torn asunder by the racism of the Democratic Party in the South.

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.."

President Lincoln - the first Republican President and considered the greatest President.

Tragically the Democratic Party reconstituted itself in the South for a century making the Civil Right Act of 1965 necessary. If this was done properly in 1865 the South would have been largely Republican as were many African-Americans and the scourge of segregation could have been entirely avoided.

Oct. 14 2012 09:55 AM
MrUniteUs from Los Angeles

Best kept secret is that most of the people eligible for AA are White
White women, veterans, disabled, are all eligible. White Hispanics,
are eligible, no Spanish language skills required. Asians are eligible,
Native Americans are eligible. Of course the myth is that the only people
eligible are THE BLACKS.
Republicans like AA because it gives them something to run.
Look all those Black getting into college and taking all those jobs,
they say. Currently Black enrollment in the University Texas 5%
Black Unemployment 13% White unemployment 6.5%

Oct. 13 2012 02:16 PM
Dan from Los Angeles, CA

UC Berkeley is not diverse post Prop 209? Are you kidding me? The campus is less than 40% white!

That's the whole problem with this whole affirmative action diversity thing, the real definition of diversity to affirmative action supporters is "how many black people are there?". That's it. According to US News & World Report, UC Berkeley is the 26th most diverse campus in the nation because it's definition of diversity is "where students are most likely to encounter undergraduates from racial or ethnic groups different from their own". So according to US News, Berkeley is diverse. According to Webster's Dictionary, Berkeley is diverse. According to your own two eyes, Berkeley is diverse. But to liberals, Berkeley is a KKK rally?

Note to non-Californians. Pro-Affirmative Action folk always seems to leave out the demographics of the UC system when they bemoan the lack of diversity post Prop 209.

Oct. 12 2012 05:46 PM

thank you all for taking time to read and to comment. i see that this topic still engenders much emotion, passion and some critical thinking. i am still tired. but i am slightly more energized, having read your comments. thank you.

Oct. 12 2012 02:43 PM

Jami -

We must be of a similar age. Many of my undergrad philosophy courses were spent discussing Bakke v. UC-Davis, reverse discrimination and quotas. And that was 35 years ago! The take-away then was that redressing the wrongs of prior discrimination was a good goal, quotas are bad and advancing the unqualified helps no one but that affirmative action has the power to create prejudice where there had been none. Affirmative action puts institutions in the position of using two wrongs to make a right. Many of us believe that it cannot be done. Sound familiar? We can't have been too far behind the Clintons in school... Since then a mythology of affirmative action has arisen. Everybody knows someone (or says they do) who has been passed over or denied because they WEREN'T a minority or woman. [My personal belief is that too many HR reps are using the 'diversity' rationale to inform non-winning candidates why they didn't get a job or position. Less fuss, less muss.]

Unspoken in most of the current cases is white privilege, its existence, and when we will know that is not significant.

But here you see the tactic of the current GOP...Let's bring it up and bring it up and bring it up until we get something closer to our way. The only way to get some peace is to give them their way. Once Obama nominates Scalia's and Thomas' replacements maybe they will cut it out.


>>"..the American obsession with race"?
>>Isn't it more accurate to say the Democratic Party's obsession with race?

Seriously? Since the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the GOP has been the home of racists and segregationists. Try googling 'Nixon southern strategy' Odd bedfellows for sure but true. Try moving your commentary forward to this century.

Oct. 12 2012 10:05 AM

"..the American obsession with race"?
Isn't it more accurate to say the Democratic Party's obsession with race? It was the Democratic Party that fiercely promoted slavery and segregation to divide the races and advance their party. It was the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction that introduced the first African-American Senators and Congressmen in the South until they were ousted by the returning Democratic Party.
After a century of rule in the South by the Democratic Party, outreach became needed again however is the purpose today more to benefit the Democratic Party and cover it's disgraceful legacy of oppression which tends to be omitted from the history?

Does the Democrat obsession with race remain an unbroken thread in the history of the Democratic Party and its pernicious quest to use it to advance their political goals and not to advance disadvantaged individuals?

Oct. 12 2012 12:55 AM

China doesn't have Affirmative Action because they're not "Racist."
Africa doesn't have Affirmative Action because they're not "Racist."
Mexico doesn't have Affirmative Action because they're not "Racist."

White countries?

White countries "need Affirmative Action" because whites are "racist."

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white

Oct. 12 2012 12:41 AM
roger from wy


Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Oct. 12 2012 12:23 AM
Jezra Kaye from Brooklyn

As a white woman, I'm saddened by Ms. Fisher's decision to assert her "right" to the college slots that she seems to believe students of color have "taken" from her. She could have worked harder to meet the requirement of being in the top 10% of her class. She could also have worked harder to make herself the kind of person who was able to successfully compete for the spots that were allotted more holistically. (And that's not even noting the obvious, that she could have attended thousands of other very fine colleges.) Neither of those efforts would have guaranteed success, but they might have educated her about the difficulties of getting ahead on her own merit, instead of relying on white privilege to open the door.

Oct. 11 2012 10:46 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at



Supported by