Affirmative action, simply defined as efforts to provide educational or employment opportunities to historically marginalized groups, has long been a controversial topic. Affirmative action was first initiated around the period of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to improve opportunities for African Americans, and today beneficiaries include a variety of minority racial groups, women, and disabled individuals. Although proponents of affirmative action appreciate the opportunities it provides socioeconomically or historically disadvantaged individuals, it is often at a detriment to those not included, which adversaries find discriminatory. Because Americans’ wishes for diversity and opposition to being judged or held to different standards due to their skin color conflict, various interest groups have popped up on both sides of the debate.
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), founded in 2014, is one that appeared on the conservative side. They have frequently challenged race-based admission in schools, though their most notable achievements may be their successes with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which overturned precedent (Grutter v. Bollinger) and banned affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court had held that both Harvard and UNC race-conscious admissions process violated the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the equal protection clause.
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action, they have held a different standard with the United States Military Academy West Point. Last month, SFFA sued West Point and requested the Supreme Court to stop their race-conscious admissions process on the basis of the inconsistency, but was denied. However, the Supreme Court had purposefully made military academies exempt from the 2023 ruling, due to “potentially distinct interests” there may be to consider applicants’ races. Because West Point is a "vital pipeline to the officer corps" (Department of Justice), their admissions strive to keep the officers as diverse as the enlisted personnel. Currently, there are some disparities, as Black and Hispanic representation among officers is only half of that of active personnel (11% to 20.2% and 9% to 18% respectively).
Although affirmative action in college admissions and in military academies are essentially the same thing, the difference in outcomes comes down to strict scrutiny. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (and UNC), the schools were unable to prove their race-conscious admissions served a “compelling governmental interest”, as well as employed racial stereotypes and failed to offer specificities. West Point, on the other hand, seems able to provide evidence supporting the necessity of affirmative action on their admissions. Regardless, as of now, the Supreme Court is leaving the case open to possibility.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-immediately-block-west-point-considering-race-a-rcna136527
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-military-academy-west-point-can-continue-consider-race-admissions-judge-rules-2024-01-03/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/discrimination-society
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199
8 comments:
I like how you made the class connection to strict scrutiny! I'm curious - Do you happen to know what the reasoning is behind the distinction between universities and military academies? What reasons are being used to validate the military academies' affirmative action?
Similar to Chris, I'm a little confused as to how standards are different for military academies versus regular colleges. I'm not sure how being a "vital pipeline to the officer corps" somehow renders West Point any different from regular colleges, as college salaries could be said to be just as or even more important than the officer corps in terms of upholding AA and boosting racial equity. The language in this ruling is pretty vague (thank you Annie for inserting quotes!)-- "potentially distinct interests” is so unclear. Hopefully, we'll get some clarity as to the legal rationale behind this.
I agree with Chris and Grace. This ruling also confused me because it seems to be dissonant from the previous ruling that banned university affirmative action. How come promoting diversity in universities, which provide higher education critical for social mobility, do not serve the same "compelling governmental interest" as military academies.
I feel like this goes to show how the Supreme Court can be just as political as another branch, even if they are meant to rule on legality and apolitically. I can understand their ruling regarding universities that affirmative action could be considered discrimination, but then they should also apply that standard to other institutions so the law is coherent with their reasoning/philosophy.
To answer Chris(and Grace and Carole)’s question, the main reason for the distinction is because of the potential implications on national security.
In terms of why affirmative action of the universities was ruled unconstitutional despite potentially creating more diversity in the workforce, the court found that their process was not narrowly tailored enough (emphasizing race too much as well as relying on racial stereotypes). It shares similarities with the case and outcome of Gratz v. Bollinger, which explains it well:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-516
We read recently in the textbook about the Supreme Court's standards for review/levels of scrutiny, and since race and ethnicity fall into the strictest category, it's most difficult to meet and therefore usually needs to be very narrowly tailored like Annie mentioned. Still, I do think its very interesting that the Court made this distinction, and wonder if it leaves room for future cases/exceptions to the ruling as well.
The outcome of this case is very surprising to me given the strong and recent precedents set in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. I understand the argument that in this case, West Point is a pipeline to officer corps (in which the government has a more compelling interest in maintaining diversity). However, aren’t universities like Harvard and UNC also pipelines to higher education and higher paying jobs? The difference between the cases seems really small to me, so it could be possible that the Supreme Court is simply trying to leave room for future reinterpretation.
Affirmative action policies aim to provide equal opportunities to historically marginalized groups, which explains why they are generally more supported by minority racial groups. In some college applications, schools use "blind admissions" to focus solely on qualifications, thus avoiding bias based on gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. However, other competitive colleges consider these factors to enhance diversity, believing a varied student body can enrich everyone's educational experience. While affirmative action can help overcome historical inequalities and promote inclusivity, it may also lead to perceptions of reverse discrimination among majority groups because the beneficiaries of affirmative action are perceived as less qualified, potentially undermining their achievements. I think it is possible for the Supreme Court to establish standards during the college application review process to prevent these negative outcomes and make rulings that benefit all groups equitably.
I find the vague nature of the SCOTUS's rationale to be really interesting ("potentially distinct interests" and "vital pipeline to the officer corps"). West Point cadets commit to 5 years of active and 3 years in the reserve after graduation, and the military academies do produce officers... but that being said, why is the military an exception? It makes sense that soldiers would want to look up to commanders who "are as diverse as the enlisted personnel," but shouldn't that be a point of interest in every occupation, not only military ones? While not all jobs may be as high-stakes as military positions are, I think it's fairly important to have equal representation for the sake of empowering and inspiring historically disempowered and oppressed youth, is it not?
Post a Comment