GENDER-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND REVERSE GENDER BIAS: BEYOND GRATZ, PARENTS INVOLVED, AND RICCI ROSALIE BERGER LEVINSON*
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. History Behind the Affirmative Action Race/Gender Anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. The Circuit Split on the Race/Gender Conundrum . . . . . . . . . IV. Analogy to Race-Based Affirmative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Remedial Purpose as a Justification for Affirmative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Diversity Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Arguments Against Affirmative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. INTRODUCTION The blockbuster race discrimination cases in recent years have all involved affirmative action and reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court has made it clear that race classifications, whether benign or invidious, will trigger rigid strict scrutiny analysis, which requires that the government prove its program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. In 2003, the Court, in Gratz v. Bollinger,1 ruled that while student diversity in educational institutions may be a compelling interest, an affirmative action program that assigned points to applicants of minority races was unconstitutional.2 In 2007, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1,3 it held that two public school district plans that used race-based enrollment targets for student assignments failed strict scrutiny because the districts neither proved a compelling interest, nor demonstrated that the plans were