3.13 Affirmative Action
The Court’s interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is influenced by the composition of the Court and citizen-state interactions. At times, it has restricted minority rights and, at others, protected them.
Explain how the Court has at times allowed the restriction of the civil rights of minority groups and at other times has protected those rights.
The debate on affirmative action includes justices who insist that the Constitution is colorblind and those who maintain that it forbids only racial classifications designed to harm minorities, not help them
Affirmative action is a civil rights policy focused on group rights rather than individual ones, aiming for equal outcomes instead of just equal opportunities. It was created to combat discriminatory hiring practices. People adversely affected, including those from different races and genders, can claim discrimination. Consequently, public and private employers and educational institutions must prove that these protected groups have been given equal chances. Critics often point to issues like racial quotas and reverse discrimination, arguing that true equality requires a colorblind approach.
The Supreme Court offers clarity on this matter. In the 1978 case Regents of California v. Bakke, the Court ruled that policies considering race as a response to verified discrimination were lawful under the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution. Even amidst attempts by the Reagan administration in the 1980s to limit affirmative action, the Supreme Court maintained that quotas were legal. In Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers v. E.E.O.C. (1986), the Court stated that race-conscious measures were justified if an employer or union had engaged in serious discrimination or to counteract longstanding discriminatory effects. In Johnson v. Santa Clara County (1987), the Court recognized that affirmative action is a forward-looking policy aimed at achieving racial and gender equality.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has appeared less supportive of affirmative action, gradually diminishing previous rulings. The Court now applies a strict scrutiny standard to diversity initiatives. Cases like Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Fisher v. Texas (2013) illustrate how the Court has sometimes restricted minority rights while at other times upheld them.
For additional context, consider the Court’s approach to LGBT issues. In 1986, Bowers v. Hardwick upheld state laws against same-sex activities. By 2015, however, Obergefell v. Hodges reversed laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. This evolution highlights how civil rights continuously shape American society.
The Fourteenth Amendment marked a pivotal moment for civil liberties and rights, introducing the due process and equal protection clauses that transformed public life in the U.S. The Selective Incorporation Doctrine ensured that most fundamental rights were protected across all states, increasing the national government's role in defending minority rights. James Madison warned in Federalist 10 about the risks of majority power overshadowing minority rights. While it is hoped that elected officials fulfill this responsibility, it has often been the U.S. Supreme Court that acts as a protector. The ongoing discussions about civil liberties and rights reflect the long-standing struggle for equality that began over two centuries ago.