![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() After all, sunset provisions are fundamentally the province of the legislature, not the judiciary. It may be tempting to dismiss Grutter’s quarter-century horizon as mere loose talk. Then, in Grutter’s most arresting feature, she concluded, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” Nevertheless, she also stated that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.” Toward the opinion’s end, she noted that 25 years had elapsed since Justice Lewis Powell provided the decisive fifth vote to uphold affirmative action in Regents of the University of California v. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court, emphasized racial diversity’s importance in elite academic environments. Bollinger (2003), which involved the University of Michigan Law School. So why would the Supreme Court extend affirmative action by five years if a majority is committed to colorblindness? The court validated affirmative action in a foundational decision, Grutter v. In 2007 he condemned school districts’ attempts to promote integration, declaring, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Making matters worse, Chief Justice John Roberts - the G.O.P.-appointed jurist most likely to join his liberal colleagues in landmark cases - has repeatedly denounced race-conscious actions. Wade (1973) four months ago could signal that the days of heeding precedent have passed. Moreover, while several decisions stretching back to the 1970s have permitted affirmative action, the court’s repudiation of Roe v. President Donald Trump’s three appointed justices - Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - are all presumed to view affirmative action skeptically. Although the court upheld the policy by a single vote in a University of Texas case in 2016, the court has since grown markedly more conservative. Liberal concerns for affirmative action’s future are not, of course, wholly unfounded. cases will almost certainly not be resolved until next summer, this approach would provide universities with a five-year reprieve before they adjust to a post-affirmative action world. Even if most of the justices wish to end affirmative action, authoritative legal considerations may nevertheless compel the court to issue a decision permitting it to exist until June 2028. Several plausible reasons suggest that the Supreme Court may not kill affirmative action - at least not with such alacrity. The very constitution of higher education in America, thus, hangs in the balance.įortunately, reports of affirmative action’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. A decision banning affirmative action would be catastrophic for the presence of marginalized racial groups on the nation’s leading campuses. The dominant, almost universal expectation is that the court will eliminate race-conscious admissions in June, at the end of this term.Īfter the court agreed to hear the cases challenging Harvard and the University of North Carolina, CNN spoke for many in declaring affirmative action “the legal equivalent of a dead man walking.” This current admissions cycle may be the last that universities can consider an applicant’s race to foster diversity. 31, only hours before millions of children get dressed up for trick-or-treating, nine Supreme Court justices will don their robes to hear oral arguments about the future of affirmative action. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |