Ryan Ross

Affirmative Action: Should action be taken?

In 2003 two important supreme court cases took place that made the public question

affirmative action and its where the line should be drawn on its effect. Both cases had to do with

the University of Michigan's affirmative action system that sought to have high diversity in their

schools. The applicant Barbara Grutter was denied into the law school and potentially would

have made it if not for the school seeking a “critical mass” of racial groups. An applicant for the

art and literature part of the school, Jennifer Gratz, was not allowed into the school either but in

this case it was because of a quota system used that automatically gave racial minorities 20 out

100 points needed to get in. In Grutter v. Bollinger the university system was not deemed

unconstitutional while in Gratz v. Bollinger it was causing the system to be changed. Overall,

both of the cases should have been struck down because the university’s use of affirmative action

was too extreme and ultimately had a reverse effect that caused unintentional inequality among

applicants.

Affirmative action when it was first implemented was justified and right for its time. It

helped groups that were just got completely equal rights but were still potentially were going to

have a hard time getting into college and getting a job that they wanted. By the time this case

came around though, the boost given by these programs was no longer needed and created a

reverse effect that now just gave a disadvantage to another group. This large of a disadvantage is

unjust, the fourteenth amendment states that “No state shall deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Document B). This equal protection is not being

applied here, getting an unfair advantage because of something you cannot control is not fair to

the people who worked harder than the people who got in with the 20 extra points. An argument
could be made that these minority groups are already affected by a disadvantage by just being

their race, statistically it is just harder for them to get education opportunities when they are

young because of poverty rates and other factors and that this point advantage would balance it

out. This argument is irrelevant because it still stands that in college, race isn’t going to get you

anywhere, it's your skills, your work ethic and your passions and just because someone else has

problem does not mean you should be affected by that. Besides, the universities reasoning for its

use of affirmative action isn’t even because of this, they just wanted more diversity in their

schools. Frederick Douglass said (referring to black people) “What I ask for is not pity, not

sympathy, but simple justice” (Document A), his quote helps further this by basically just saying

that people should always have equal rights and opportunities despite the peoples background

and race.

In regards to the Grutter v. Bollinger, the law school’s brief said that it wanted to “enroll

a critical mass of minority students” (Document D). Getting this critical mass is never a bad

thing, there should always be a diverse group of people from different backgrounds and races to

able to shed light on topics and make an environment an overall better place. The majority

opinion on the case said that the reasoning was that they didn’t want races to feel isolated or be

the spokesperson for their race (Document E). This would be great and should be a goal we have

in our world but when it comes down to it, you have to be fair first. As stated before your

qualifications are the most important factor, diverse backgrounds should always be encouraged

but never to the extent that University of Michigan went to. Even the university brief itself

emphasizes this, it says “We seek to admit a group of students who individually and collectively

are among the most capable, with substantial promise for success in law school and a strong

likelihood of succeeding in the practice of law and contributing in diverse ways to the well being
of others” (Document D). This quote shows how much they do want the best people they can

find that are the most qualified. If you let a person of a minority group into your school that was

less qualified than a majority, all its going to do is make people angry, lower the standards of

acceptance and create an unfair system.

As established previously, affirmative action is destructive if used to an extent that could

affect a significant amount of students, like the two cases, especially the Gratz v. Bollinger case.

Yet somehow the art schools system becomes more flawed when looked into. In the art school

(according to Document I) having “extraordinary artistic talent” would only gain you five points.

To rephrase, being qualified in artistic ability, in an art school was 4 times less important than

being an underrepresented minority. Their quota system was flawed in other fields, like having a

perfect SAT score would only award you twelve points and it goes on. This system is

significantly more flawed than the one discussed in the Grutter v. Bollinger case but

understanding the differences is important to interpret the difference in outcomes of the case. In

the Grutter case, the amount of action and consideration taken into the race of the person was

less specific. It was not on the basis of percentages or points which justified it as constitutional.

Still, the heavy use of considering race was wrong here and should have been struck down to a

lesser degree. Seeing race in anyway towards these application is just wrong, more important

factors like income level should be considered in this area.

According to William Rehnquist (Document F) the applicants that were part of a minority

group mostly got into the law school, people who were getting in were most likely qualified to

get in anyway without any boost. Instances like Grutter’s were likely rare but still unjust. People

who were qualified were getting into the school anyway, exemplifying that the edge groups got

was not needed and only made it unfair for people who didn’t get in when they were on the close
to getting in. Overall, this logic shows that using an affirmative action program based on race is

not needed in college admissions. Furthermore, an important solution that could be to consider

the income level of the person applying higher than more arbitrary things like the color of skin.

This would get rid of the problem of people in poverty not being accepted which would in turn

help those underrepresented minorities that many times have difficulty getting into schools

because of their lack of opportunities. Although this solution would probably not help Grutter, it

would be more logical than using arbitrary things like race.

Use of race in applications creates another problem in regards to culture of the university

and stereotypes. A race getting a boost makes other groups feel cheated and like the other group

didn’t work as hard and that they are getting by on their race. Assumptions about these people

will be made and further contribute to stereotypes against this group. For example, people like

Barack Obama who graduated from harvard are often discredited for their exceptional work

because of the likes of affirmative action. It ends up hurting both sides in the end and even

contributes to more racism.

Looking at all the information presented here leads to the ultimate conclusion that

affirmative action in college admissions is a harmful process. It gives unfair advantages to

minorities, continues to reinforce stereotypes and let's potentially less qualified people in a

school based on the arbitrary factor of race. The system worked when is created but is now

outdated and unnecessary. Furthermore, the Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger case

should have both been ruled unconstitutional because of the unfair admissions process that the

University of Michigan had in place. Diversity in culture is something that the world should want

to achieve but it cannot be forced like in these cases or else it will make matters worse for

everyone involved.