Affirmative Action: Crash Course Government and Politics #32

Summary

In this Crash Course episode, Craig explores the concept of affirmative action, focusing on its definition, history, and the legal battles that have shaped it. Affirmative action aims to address historical discrimination by providing special access to education and employment for minority groups. While the courts have allowed such programs to promote diversity, they have also imposed strict scrutiny to ensure fairness. The practice remains controversial, with ongoing debates about its necessity and effectiveness. Despite legal challenges, affirmative action continues to be a vital tool for fostering equal opportunity in the U.S.

Takeaways

• 😀 Affirmative action aims to redress historical injustices by providing special access to educational and employment opportunities for historically discriminated groups.
• 😀 The controversy surrounding affirmative action stems from differing views on equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcomes.
• 😀 Most Americans support equality of opportunity, but are less in favor of government actions that aim to achieve equality of outcomes, such as redistributing wealth.
• 😀 Affirmative action programs are viewed by some as giving a 'head start' in education and employment, which contrasts with the ideal of equal opportunity.
• 😀 The 1973 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ruled that racial quotas in college admissions are unconstitutional, but allowed affirmative action programs to promote diversity.
• 😀 The court's ruling in Bakke emphasized that diversity in university admissions serves a compelling government interest, but rejected using affirmative action to right historical wrongs.
• 😀 Affirmative action has faced increasing scrutiny in the courts, with strict scrutiny tests often leading to the strike-down of many affirmative action policies.
• 😀 In the 1995 case of Adarand Constructors v. Peña, the court made it clear that racial preferences in government contracting were unconstitutional unless they served a compelling government interest.
• 😀 The University of Michigan cases in 2003 (Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger) showed the complexity of affirmative action, where one policy was struck down and the other upheld, depending on how narrowly tailored it was to achieving diversity.
• 😀 The support for affirmative action remains divided, with some arguing it's still needed to address the legacy of discrimination, especially in education, while others see it as a problematic policy that favors certain groups over others.

Q & A

What is affirmative action?

Affirmative action is a government or private program designed to redress historic injustices against specific groups by making special efforts to provide members of these groups with access to educational and employment opportunities.

Why is affirmative action considered controversial?

Affirmative action is controversial because it provides special access to opportunities for certain groups, which some view as unequal or as 'reverse discrimination,' rather than promoting equality of opportunity.

What is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes?

Equality of opportunity means everyone should have the same chance at success, while equality of outcomes suggests that the government should work to ensure everyone ends up with similar results, such as wealth or success. Affirmative action is often seen as aiming for equality of opportunity, but its critics argue it leads to unequal outcomes.

How did the Supreme Court rule in Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke (1978)?

The Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas in college admissions were unconstitutional, but it allowed affirmative action programs if they served a compelling government interest, such as promoting diversity in university student bodies.

What was the significance of Adarand Constructors Inc. vs. Peña (1995)?

Adarand Constructors Inc. vs. Peña (1995) clarified that affirmative action policies, including racial preferences in hiring, are subject to 'strict scrutiny' by the courts, meaning they must meet a high standard of justification to be upheld.

What was the result of the Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003) case?

In Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded extra points to racial minorities, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity.

How did the court rule in the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003)?

In Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, which considered race but in a way that was narrowly tailored to achieve diversity in the student body.

What is the significance of strict scrutiny in affirmative action cases?

Strict scrutiny is a legal test applied by the courts to ensure that affirmative action policies are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, such as promoting diversity in education, and that they are the least restrictive means of achieving that goal.

What happened in California after Proposition 209 was passed in 1996?

After Proposition 209 was passed, banning affirmative action in public employment, contracting, and education, the graduation rate among African Americans at some California universities increased, but enrollment rates for African Americans at UC schools declined until they returned to pre-1996 levels in 2010.

Why do some people still support affirmative action despite legal challenges?

Many people support affirmative action because they believe that, given the historical injustices faced by minority groups, such as African Americans, ongoing support is necessary to address systemic inequality and ensure equal opportunities in education and employment.