Affirmative action
Due to society’s history of implementing many discriminatory policies that create inequality by targeting the African American people and women, as well as other minorities, President John F. Kennedy created Affirmative Action policies as a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Affirmative Action is a set of policies that help to fight injustice in society by protecting minority groups from prejudice and discrimination in education as well as the workforce. There has been much debate about the fairness of Affirmative Action and it has been a topic of many Supreme Court cases. One of these cases is Schuette v. the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. This case showcases the dilemma of individual rights vs. the common good. The common good position has the goal to increase diversity in schools by creating more of a multicultural student body, which leads to less discrimination. The individual rights perspective has the goal to increase conservative ideas surrounding minority groups, allowing for more individual opportunities. Schuette v. the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action shows that affirmative action is necessary to increase diversity by equalizing the playing field for minority groups and students; serving the common good when addressing inequality is more important than serving individual rights. Therefore, this case emphasizes that providing opportunities for minority students is the common good position because society has always focused on only the individual rights of white people, especially white men. All minority groups suffered until affirmative action policies finally gave minorities the rights that they deserved.
As mentioned above, Affirmative Action is any type of program that specifically protects the rights of a specific minority group by establishing laws and guidelines that aim to expand opportunities for minority groups (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). In other words, Affirmative Action is any program that can establish an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women, despite discrimination (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act is an Affirmative Action policy. In addition, Affirmative Action also has an element of promoting the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons, such as people with disabilities. This promotes diversity and helps to establish a fair way to correct discriminatory policies and prejudice. Other countries also have their own affirmative action policies.
Affirmative Action is still a controversial topic. Perhaps, one of the most deciding Supreme Court cases on affirmative action, in relation to the constitutional amendments, was the case called Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action in 2014. The main issue in this case was whether or not the state of Michigan violated the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Michigan established a new amendment that banned the use of race- and sex-based preferred treatment in public university admissions decisions for minority students in its state constitution. The Supreme Court heard the case in 2014 after the Michigan Court System fully appealed the case. This issue began during the November 2006 election, when a majority of Michigan voters supported Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment that would not allow "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting" (Oyez, 2017). Despite the majority support, the amendment still faced a lot of backlash when it was passed.
After Michigan passed the law, a group of people formed a coalition to defend Affirmative Action. The coalition was named, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (Oyez, 2017). The Coalition sued the Governor, the Regents, and Boards of Trustees of the three state universities in district court by arguing that the proposition violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed by holding the proposed amendment unconstitutional. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Michigan initiative violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This is because the law was created and established as if it were a Constitutional Amendment. The appeals court said the new rule “reordered the political process” in a way that put special burdens on racial minorities (Oyez, 2017). The law in Michigan was trying to equalize opportunities for all students by declaring that admissions decisions must be made based on applications as opposed to race; however, it is important to remember that Affirmative Action is needed because society needs to give minority groups opportunities that are normally not accessible to them.
This decision was unanimous and it was based on the rule of three pluralities. Michigan is giving students special treatment by allowing minority students more opportunities to attend their universities based on their merit rather than race. This is because they want to even out the playing field by giving a fair chance to minority students. However, this law conflicts with the idea that some students are still being denied an education based on the sole fact of race and appearance. This is the reason why Affirmative Action exists in the first place because there are violations to the principle of common good, which favor individual rights. With this decision, the Supreme Court said the individual rights of non-minority students are not more important than the common good of society. Therefore, Michigan’s law school admission limited the use of race in the admissions process. The Supreme Court reversed this decision. Justice Kennedy, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, reasoned that the principle that considered race in the admissions process should be permissible when certain conditions are met. This challenged previous notions that the issue of race did not appear to be a major concern. Oyez, 2017). The Supreme Court was more concerned with Michigan’s voters being able to create laws. The fact that they were able to create an amendment to help stop discrimination shows that sometimes individuals know how to fight for the common good of society. The amendment supports Affirmative Action because students are now admitted based on merit, not race, which created more diversity and opportunities for minority students.
The decision by Michigan voters reflects an ongoing national discussion about affirmative action. This case acknowledged that individual liberty has two aspects; Constitutional protection and the right of citizens to act through a lawful electoral process, with regard to individual liberty. As a result, the state did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it amended its own constitution through the legislative process to ensure that race is not taken into account by the admissions departments of state educational institutions (Harvard University, 2014). This shows how important affirmative action is when people unite for a common cause. The people of Michigan were able to a change a law by standing up for what they believed in and they fought for the common good of society by establishing a law that gives minority students more individual rights. This increased diversity by allowing more students to enroll in universities.
This decision was proved to be divided because it was based on the three-justice plurality. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy believed that the Michigan law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause (Richey, W. 2014). As a result, the plurality of this decision made it possible for Michigan voters to define and protect the rights of minorities instead of allowing the government to classify people based on race by creating new discriminatory policies that therefore perpetuate the same racism. (Oyez, 2017). Michigan policies were meant to readdress prejudice and discrimination toward minorities. Thus this decision and Michigan’s law supports affirmative action. The federal court does not have the power to stop citizens from changing policies if they want to. In fact, it would be denying the voters their right to debate and act through the lawful democratic process. This is significant in Schuette v. the Coalition.
There are many other dissenting opinions in this case. An important dissenting opinion to defend equality of all people was made by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the system of democracy does not establish adequate protection against the oppression of minority groups. This is why the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as, Affirmative Action policies exists in society to fight unequal treatment of minority groups. Even though equal protection typically protects minority groups, it also protects against the creation of new laws that would oppress these groups. This is because she believes that the amendment of Michigan’s constitution violates the Equal Protection clause by creating two different admission processes. According to Justice Sotomayor, one admission process is for people who do believe race is supposed to be considered and a separate one for those who do not. If the Michigan law places special burdens on minority groups then it violates the Equal Protection Clause. Judicial precedent holds that governmental action violates the Equal Protection Clause when it has a racial focus that places a greater burden on a minority. The voters of a state cannot democratically ratify an amendment that violates the Constitution in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. She argued that the decision ignored a key purpose of the Equal Protection Clause (Justice Sotomayor's Powerful Defense of Equality).
Unfortunately, due to the way we are socialized, society focuses on an individual’s appearance rather than substance. This is why affirmative action is important because it takes people a while to move past their first impression, but affirmative action makes that possible by increasing diversity in schools and the workforce. Schuette v. the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, shows how important Affirmative Action is to the diversity of society. This case is able to show the dilemma of individual rights vs. the common good. Schuette v. the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action emphasizes that serving minority students through Affirmative Action is the common good position. The reason for this is that the white privilege in society has always focused on the individual rights of white people. Affirmative Action is a way to counteract that privilege and fight against the discrimination and prejudice facing minorities. These actions overall help individuals to see more than just an appearance, which helps the common good.
References
Hultin, Brenda Bautsch Suzanne. "NCSL: National Conference of State Legislatures." N.p., 7 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.
Justice Sotomayor's Powerful Defense of Equality. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from
Richey, W. (2014, April 22). US Supreme Court: Michigan ban on affirmative action OK
(video). Retrieved April 22, 2017, from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0422/US-Supreme-Court-Michigan-ban-on-affirmative-action-OK-video
Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights
572 U.S. ___ (2014)
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-682
Supreme Court upholds Michigan's ban on racial preferences in university admissions. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/supreme-court-upholds-michigans-ban-on-racial-preferences-in-university-admissions
University, Harvard. (nod). Schulte v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and
Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11/schuette-v-coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action-integration-and-immigrant-rights-and-fight-for-equality-by-any-means-necessary-bamn/
Comments
Post a Comment