“Persisting Racial Inequality In The United States of America”
When Thomas Jefferson and America’s founding fathers drafted the constitution, they envisioned a life of freedom and equality for themselves and every other citizen of the United States. Their vision had a huge caveat: only white men were created equally and held inherent rights. Our founding fathers immediately ingrained discrimination into the bones of this country and set the stage for years of struggle to achieve equal opportunity. After 185 years of denying equal social and economic opportunities to minorities and women, America’s leaders chose to act. The actions of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson brought forward a plan called affirmative action: to address the under-representation of qualified minorities and women in higher education and the workplace. With a foundation that contains discrimination in its core, affirmative action did not come without controversy. It has been the central topic of notable Supreme Court cases such as University of California Regents v. Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas. Many who oppose affirmative action argue that race-conscious programs lead to reverse discrimination and group preferences over individual merit. Through arguments, data and research, it will be shown that affirmative action is indeed an effective remedy for addressing racial inequality in higher education and other institutions. Without it in this current time, large negative effects would be felt throughout higher education and higher education. Affirmative action’s origins stem from an executive order that John F. Kennedy wrote in regards to the hiring practices of employers. It stated “...will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The Contractor will take affirmative action, to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin”[1]. He issued this executive action to address discrimination that was still occurring despite civil rights laws. Then President Lyndon B. Johnson defined the concept of affirmative action emphasizing that civil rights laws alone were not enough to resolve discrimination. He did this by issuing an executive order to enforce affirmative action toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Johnson stated, “This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek…not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result” [2]. Johnson was not naïve in thinking that after years of racism and discrimination against Blacks and other minorities that playing field would become level because a law was put into place. Higher education institutions and employers were forced ensure that Blacks and other minorities were given equal consideration for school admissions, scholarships, financial aid, salary increases and promotions. But the issue, that immediately followed this landmark policy, was how long does this temporary measure last for.
It did not take long for affirmative action to be litigated by the Supreme Court; the court heard the Bakke case in 1978. A white male, by the name of Allan Bakke, had been rejected from The University of California Regents medical school. It was discovered that the medical school had been reserving a set number of seats for minority students, which was discriminating against white applicants. The court banned this practice of quotas, but upheld the legality of affirmative action has a whole. It would not be until 2003 till the Supreme Court made another landmark decision on affirmative action in higher education [3].
The court heard the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, which challenged if the University of Michigan’s law school had the ability to use race as an admission factor. In 5-4 decision the court upheld the school’s policy that race could be considered as one of many factors when selecting students. The large amount of amicus briefs backing the University of Michigan, arguing the benefits of having a diverse organization, was a significant factor in the ruling. The court wrote in their majority opinion, there was “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student” [4]. However this changed why affirmative action was justified; it was no longer for rectifying past oppression and discrimination, but to promote a “compelling state interest”.
Affirmative action has been in place for about 50 years now, but has it been effective in higher education and other institutions? Looking across the entire United States on the macro level, Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians have benefited from affirmative action but not by much. According to the Pew Research Center, in 1993, Hispanics and Blacks only consisted of about 9% and 10% of students enrolled in college, respectively. Despite the fact that affirmative action had been in place for about 30 years, minorities were still being significantly underrepresented in higher education. In 2012, Hispanics saw a significant increase to 19%. Conversely, Blacks only rose to 14%. Reporting data for Asians did not begin till 1999. They are by far the most underrepresented race with a mere 7% in 2012. The country as a whole is taking steps in the right direction towards achieving equality, but has a long way to go in higher education. In the workplace, Blacks have seen much of the same racial inequality. In 1983, the unemployment rate for Blacks was 19.5%, while Whites was 8.4%. 20 years later in 2013, Blacks unemployment rate dropped to 13.4% and Whites fell to 6.7%. Even though there was a drop in the rate after 20 years, the disparity between the two races is still significant. Despite what critics say, Whites continue to hold their supremacy in the United States with affirmative action in place.
Critics of affirmative action often also been heard saying that policies and programs should be colorblind. That way, without acknowledging race, there will be no basis for discrimination against anyone. Justice John Harlan in his dissenting opinion of Plessy v. Ferguson, said, “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows no tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law” [7]. In other words, Justice John Harlan thought that the government should be colorblind because the constitution ordered it. If we used a race-blind approach to everything it would be the end to racial justice. There are circumstances where color could make a huge difference. Take, for example, a city that has a lot of crime and is predominately black. If the hiring process for police officers was colorblind, it would be hard to construct a police force that accurately represents the public. If that police force turned out to be largely white, they might start stereotyping all blacks in the community as criminals.
There are also situations where the government needs to be race-conscious to accomplish equality. For example, say a government agency was found to be intentionally hiring and promoting employee because of their race despite this hypothetical colorblind society. A solution to this discrimination would be to hire and promote employees of color till they were well represented in the agency. On the other hand, if the government was forced to see in race-blind optics, there would be no justice to this discrimination. The simple truth is that race matters. It’s a social construction that affects our lives from the way we perceive the world to the way we are treated.
Opponents, to this day, continue to see past the facts and ways that affirmative action is beneficial to achieving an equal and just society. Today the attack against affirmative action is underway in the rehearing of Supreme Court case, Fischer v. University of Texas. Fischer, a white girl who was denied admission into the undergraduate program at Austin, feels she was discriminated against because minorities were being given priority over Whites. The state of Texas has a law in place that grants automatic admission to any student who finishes in the top 10% their class. It was introduced as way to boost minority student’s admission into the university because high schools in Texas were extremely segregated. The students that fell in the top 10% of their high school took up 75% of the admitted class. The rest of the class, which included Fischer, was to be decided by ‘holistic’ review. This means that students were admitted based on many factors, which included race, like the Grutter case. Fischer believes that race should have never been used in the holistic review because of the top 10% plan. Despite Fischer’s claim, the current racial demographics for the University at Austin tell another story. Blacks take up meager 4% of the class; Asians, Hispanics, and Whites take up 19%, 22%, and 46%, respectively [8]. Even while considering race and having their top 10% plan in place, the university struggles with equality among racial demographics, especially with Blacks. If the Supreme Court rules against the university, the diversity of their classes will decrease. This is seen in states where laws are in place banning affirmative action, like California. When California banned affirmative action in 1998, in just one year Hispanics and Blacks enrollment at U.C. Berkley dropped to from 14% to 9% and 8% to 4%, respectively [9]. The Supreme Court must rule with the University of Texas or these trends will be seen across the country.
If the Supreme Court rules against the university, they have two options in their ruling. The court can either say that the University of Texas’s specific admission policy is unconstitutional or that affirmative action has a whole is unconstitutional. If they rule that affirmative action has a whole is unconstitutional the nation will feel large negative impacts. Universities will be forced to achieve diversity somehow else. Universities may look to socioeconomic status and consider impoverished students, as they once considered race because of the overwhelming amount of minorities who are impoverished. However, a negative effect of this would be an increase in the number of scholarships given; that money has to come from somewhere. It could come directly from raised tuition, a raise in state taxes, or a cut in funding from University or state programs.
Universities might change weight on other factors such as SAT scores and grades. Backes and Antonovics found that UC schools, responding to the ban on affirmative action in California, decreased weight given to SAT and increased weights given to high school GPA and family background characteristics. 13 years after the ban with new weights put into place, at U.C. Berkeley Hispanics only increased 2% and Blacks decreased 2%. U.C. Los Angeles saw a 4% increase and Blacks saw a 1% decrease. [8] Even though Hispanics have seen a slight increase they have not been able to achieve the numbers they once had. These weight changes do not favor Blacks in any manor. It’s clear that banning affirmative action only creates negative impacts.
Affirmative action has been seen to be effective but not nearly enough, especially in higher education. Some changes will have to be made to see a significant decrease in racial inequality. One solution might be change weights of factors as the U.C. schools did while considering race. This would place more weight on race without actually putting more weight on race. Another solution might be employ Texas’s top 10% plan only to schools that been shown to be racially segregated. This would, with a doubt, effectively increase minority percentages at Universities across the country.
Affirmative has been controversial since the day it formally became a policy by Lyndon B. Johnson. It has seen its fair share of Supreme Court cases, while continuing to being shaped through its existence. It has been shown that with the existence of affirmative action, minorities have increased in their respective total amount of students enrolled in college. Furthermore, blacks unemployment rate has significantly decreased over the years. Though there have been improvements in underrepresentation of minorities in American society, it has not been enough. There are still significant improvements to be made. One can only hope that the Supreme Court does not rule against the University of Texas and rule affirmative action unconstitutional, or the United States will feel large negative impacts

References 1. Executive Order 10925. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/eo-10925.html 2. Equal Opportunity Is Not Enough. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesontheprize/sources/ps_bakke.html 3. Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265 4. GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER (02-241) 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
288 F.3d 732, affirmed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html 5. Black unemployment rate is consistently twice that of whites. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/21/through-good-times-and-bad-black-unemployment-is-consistently-double-that-of-whites/ 6. More Hispanics, blacks enrolling in college, but lag in bachelor’s degrees. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/more-hispanics-blacks-enrolling-in-college-but-lag-in-bachelors-degrees/ 7. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/plessy_v._ferguson_1896. 8. http://www.collegeportraits.org/TX/UTAustin/characteristics 9. How Minorities Have Fared in States With Affirmative Action Bans. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/24/us/affirmative-action-bans.html 10. Kate Antonovics. Ben Backes. “The Effect of Banning Affirmative Action on College Admissions Rules and Student Quality.” April 10, 2013. Page 1,20.