The Supreme Court recently announced the addition of Schuette v. Coalition to its growing list of affirmative action cases.
Schuette v. Coalition developed in response to a Michigan state law prohibiting the inclusion of race as a factor in the college admissions process, The New York Times stated. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati deemed the law unconstitutional due to its incompliance with the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold or reject the ruling.
The case will be argued in addition to Fisher v. University of Texas, which gained national attention when the University of Texas at Austin denied Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, both in-state applicants, admission to the University in 2008. The women claimed the decision was on account of their race, but the United States District Court backed the University’s admissions criteria since it did not violate the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger affirmative action case. Michalewicz removed herself from the case proceedings in 2011.
Melvin Thomas, associate professor of sociology, said he was not confident the Supreme Court will uphold the rulings.
“The Supreme Court I guess in recent years has been has been weakening affirmative action…from the Bakke decision in ‘78 on to the present, so I am not optimistic of a positive ruling from them,” Thomas said.
Part of affirmative action’s negative connotation has to do with miscommunication, according to Thomas. “Affirmative action is opposed by most white Americans and a lot of African Americans because they don’t understand the extent of racism that currently exists, of discrimination that currently exists, as well as the impact of past discrimination. Because of that, affirmative action doesn’t seem to make sense because it seems to contradict the norms of meritocracy. In that context, it’s tough for affirmative action to survive, because the reasons for affirmative action are poorly understood.”
Thomas said he found the Fisher v. University of Texas case interesting because the University still would not have admitted Fisher had race not been one of the factors in the decision. Louisiana State University later accepted Fisher, so she did not have much ground for damages.
Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association of Affirmative Action, said the Supreme Court’s aggressiveness in the case was surprising.
“I hope the court is far more insightful about the nature of the impact it has on the nation in the future. The Supreme Court has progressively made it more difficult to defend descendants of slavery. It’s time for the Supreme Court to take a look at the historical reasons for the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Schuette v. Coalition probably will not have a lot of impact nationwide because it is confined to a state law, Wilcher said. The Fisher v. University of Texas will likely have a broader impact because it could outlaw the use of race in the admissions process on a federal level.
Thomas Griffin, director of undergraduate admissions, said if the Supreme Court decides a state law banning affirmative action is constitutional, that might set the precedent for other states like North Carolina to ban affirmative action as well.
“If this is a limitation that the court puts on [N.C. State] by not allowing us to use race or ethnicity in the admissions process,” Griffin said, “then I think it will mean we have one less tool to try to create a diverse student body.” The University currently uses a holistic approach, with race and ethnicity one of many factors in the admissions process as mandated by the federal government.
Many people oppose affirmative action because they believe race is the deciding factor, though affirmative action does not employ a quota system.
“These forms of preferences are as old as the nation, and when it comes to race there is resentment,” Wilcher said. “What would happen if the door was closed to opportunities?”
Wilcher asserted that outlawing affirmative action in the admissions process would overturn what Sandra Day O’ Conner fought so hard to achieve in Grutter v. Bollinger.
Associate Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity Amy Circosta said, “It’s important for individuals to educate themselves on what affirmative action really is.”
