Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION-IN-THE-US--Amp--ITS- 👈

1. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE US
& ITS CORRELATION WITH
SUCCESS
By: Ibrahim Shehata
Teaching Assistant - Faculty of Law
Cairo University, Egypt
December, 2016

2. Shehata 2
Table of Contents
I- US Supreme Court Review of Affirmative Action.....................................5
A- University of California, 1978:.....................................................................5
B- Michigan University, 2003: ..........................................................................8
C- University of Texas, 2016: ..........................................................................12
II- Opponents’ Arguments...............................................................................14
A- Mismatching Effect:....................................................................................14
B- Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination: ........................................16
III- Proponents’ Arguments..............................................................................18
A- Compelling Interest of Diversity: ..............................................................18
B- Theory of Six Degrees of Separation & Michigan Law School’s
Aftermath:..............................................................................................................20
IV- Conclusion: Keeping and Reforming Affirmative Action: .....................23
A- Why do we need to keep Affirmative Action?..........................................23
B- What aspects need to be reformed in Affirmative Action?.....................24
Works Cited...........................................................................................................28

3. Shehata 3
Success can be tricky and hard to accomplish. Succeeding as a member of a minority group
might prove to be even trickier and harder. Paving a pathway for minorities to achieve success
has never been a piece of cake. Generally speaking, a big chunk of minority groups in the US,
especially the blacks have suffered from discrimination for a long period of time. Around the
1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the first advocates to address the elephant in the
room. King wanted to put an end to a long history of racial discrimination against African-
Americans. One of the first fruits of his efforts is the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
However, this act was not enough. American society needed several tools and channels to
encourage the integration of the underprivileged blacks into all aspects of American life. That’s
when the term “affirmative action” was brought to life.
“Affirmative action” was first coined by President John F. Kennedy when he was trying to
come up with solutions to resolve the racial discrimination that was deeply rooted in American
society. Kennedy issued Executive Order no. 10925 which required “federally funded employers
to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"” (Maclaury 42).
This piece of legislation was an outcry against racial discrimination suffered by African-
Americans. That’s why affirmative action policies were introduced in the first place.
Not long after the affirmative action was adopted in the 1960s, a provocative, controversial
and contentious debate has aroused since then. Whether the reason for the controversy is whites
being protective of their American Dream, or some myths created after politics interfered into the
subject, or the pockets of racism in the US, or merely a disagreement over methods to fight
discrimination, affirmative action has been a hot topic for such a long time. George Curry offered

4. Shehata 4
a new perspective of affirmative action and how some keywords can alter the entire result of some
surveys. Curry mentioned that:
“A public opinion poll by ABC News and the Washington Post showed that 76 percent of
Americans oppose affirmative action in college admissions. However, a poll conducted by
the Public Religion Research Institute showed that 68 percent of Americans favor the
principles behind affirmative action…. Note the wording of the questions. The
ABC/Washington Post question provided no context for evaluating affirmative action
admissions, only whether respondents support or oppose using race as a factor. On the
other hand, the Public Religion Research Institute approach placed the issue within the
context of “past discrimination” and using “special efforts” to help people of color get
ahead” (Curry).
Curry provided a clear demonstration of how some words such as “affirmative action”,
“special efforts” and “past discrimination” could either elaborate or mislead public opinion about
affirmative action. It seems that there are magic words which can seamlessly change a response
into a completely new one instead. That’s how much affirmative action has usually been
controversial up to this very moment. In all cases, success has various definitions which are almost
never limited to one or two elements; success is the motley of various factors. One of the most
important factors of success is receiving the right opportunity to succeed and flourish. To sum up,
“talent is universal, but opportunity is not” (Odede and Posner xii-xiii).
This research paper will dedicate a special focus to the way the US Supreme Court has
reacted to various affirmative action policies when implemented by American educational
institutions. In addition, this paper will try to provide a brief overview of the contradicting views
and opinions regarding affirmative action. Finally, this research aims at suggesting some reforms

5. Shehata 5
that can be used to improve the current policies and reforming affirmative action as a shortcut to
success.
I- US Supreme Court Review of Affirmative Action
A- University of California, 1978:
Affirmative action has long been an intense debate among the Justices of the US Supreme
Court, especially when it comes to the field of higher education. The first landmark case pertaining
to education was reviewed by the US Supreme Court in the year 1978. The parties to this case
were a medical school "the University of California" and a white student "Bakke" whose
application was denied by the school, whereas the latter “reserved sixteen places in each entering
class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action
program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical
profession. Bakke's qualifications…exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the
two years Bakke's applications were rejected” (“Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke”).
This was the first interaction between the Supreme Court and the applied affirmative action
policies by US universities. The fact that a white student who is more qualified than any other
minority student would get rejected was quite surprising at the time. This happened at a time when
minorities, especially African-Americans were crawling their first steps towards achieving
equality with the white race. In fact, this case was also highly disputed between the court justices
- a 5-4 decision - as they quibbled about several aspects whereby:
“Four justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. … argued that the rigid use of
racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the

6. Shehata 6
Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion
in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined
that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several
admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of
equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through
affirmative action” (“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke”).
It appears that the Court felt that it had to hold the stick from the middle; it had to find for
Bakke, but still embrace the principles behind the scheme of affirmative action. The Court tied
down the application of affirmative action to the main criterion which the court described as the
“compelling interest of diversity in higher education”. This notion was defined by the Supreme
Court as: “encompassing the individual experiences and backgrounds of all persons beyond race
or ethnicity in order to create an enriched educational experience, is a compelling state interest”
(Everett and Cheatham 225). In this regard, one can deduce that the US Supreme Court drew a
distinction between using “racial quotas” which was impermissible, and maintaining a
“compelling interest of diversity” as a cause for applying affirmative action policies which was
rather applauded.
The Court simply affirmed the right of American universities to “consider race as one of a
number of factors for diversity that contributes to the “robust exchange of ideas”” ("Does Diversity
Make a Difference? A Research Report" 2). The Court realized how affirmative action policies
can contribute to a more diverse classroom, and thus a better educational environment that can
promote success in the future.
However, the concept of diversity was required to be narrowly tailored by US universities
in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: “ethnic diversity is only one element in a range

7. Shehata 7
of factors which a university may properly consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous
student body”. Furthermore, the Court agreed that affirmative action programs can be used as
remedial for past discrimination suffered by certain minorities as long as these programs suffice
certain criteria:
“A classification which aids persons who are perceived as members of relatively victimized
groups at the expense of other innocent individuals is permissible only when there are
judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations; after
such findings have been made, the governmental interest in preferring members of the
injured groups at the expense of others is substantial, since the legal rights of the victims
must be vindicated” (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)
Despite the fact that this landmark ruling was issued by the US Supreme Court – the highest
court in the hierarchy of American legal system and hence should be followed and enforced by
any inferior US court - there were mixed applications by various US courts. For instance, in cases
such as “Hopwood v. Texas”, and “Johnson v. University of Georgia”, affirmative action was
entirely discarded. In both cases, the US Court of Appeals ruled against the application of the
applied affirmative action policies by US universities in question. Even though US universities
used race as one of the factors in the admission process, the Court argued that there was no
“compelling interest of diversity”, and that these policies were violating the Equal Protection
Clause under the US Constitution. In addition, there were several bans against affirmative actions
in various states. According to an article posted by New York Times, in 1998 in California, "the
voters approved a statewide ban on affirmative action", and in Texas in 1997, there also was a
court ruling which “prohibited … using affirmative action” (Fessenden and Keller). In light of
these events, the US Supreme Court had an obligation to shed light on the context of affirmative

8. Shehata 8
action policies and instill a clear breakdown of the elements of “compelling interest of diversity”.
Eventually, more than 25 years of legal obscurity, haziness, and ambiguity was resolved by the
US Supreme Court on the 23rd
of June, 2003.
B- Michigan University, 2003:
In 2003, Michigan University was a party to two remarkable cases which proved to be the
heart and soul of the legal justification of affirmative action policies in US universities. To fathom
the historic significance of such cases, one can read the statement made by Helm Mark in his article
"Lawsuit over affirmative action policies has many `friends'; Briefs supporting Michigan policy
exceed opponents”:
“The case which involves the University of Michigan's policy of giving blacks and
Hispanics an edge in admissions over whites and Asians has drawn 100 friend-of-the-court
briefs, shattering the old record of 78 submitted in connection with the 1989 decision in
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services involving abortion rights …Dozens of
corporations, more than 100 universities, retired military leaders, psychologists, labor
unions and civil rights groups signed briefs that called on the court to allow the continued
use of race-based preferences. One brief supporting the university was signed by nearly
14,000 law students” (Mark).
The Court issued its rulings with regard to both cases on the exact same day, June 23. The
petitioner in the first case was a white female student named Barbara Grutter who applied to
University of Michigan Law School in 1997. The Law School denied Grutter’s application
admitting that it “uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a
"compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body"” ("Grutter v. Bollinger"). In a
5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that ͆the Equal Protection

9. Shehata 9
Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to
further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student
body͇ ("Grutter v. Bollinger").
The reasoning of the Court pivoted around the fact that Michigan Law School did not
automatically reject Grutter because she is white. The race was only used as a factor by Michigan
Law School amongst other factors which also contributed to one goal; the production of a diverse
student body. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible
diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does
not unduly harm nonminority applicants" ("Grutter v. Bollinger"). In other words, Michigan Law
School adopted a holistic approach taking into consideration all applicants and how admitting
anyone would contribute to a more diverse educational environment. The Court went on to list the
numerous benefits of having a diverse student body: “promote cross-racial understanding, to help
break down racial stereotypes and to enable students to better understand persons of different races,
to promote learning outcomes, to better prepare students for an increasingly diverse workforce and
society, and to better prepare students as professionals” (Grutter v. Bollinger).
The Court reinstated the prohibition of using a race-quota system in the admission process
in US universities. In other words, every applicant should have a chance to be admitted to the
university. Race can be used only as “a plus in a particular applicant's file” (Grutter v. Bollinger),
and a US university still has an obligation to draw a comparison between all applicants regardless
of their race or ethnicity. The reason for narrowly tailoring a race-conscious admission program is
to “ensure that the means chosen fit the compelling goal so closely that there is little or no
possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype”
(Grutter v. Bollinger).

10. Shehata 10
Furthermore, the Court applauded the Law School’s persistence in exploring other race-
neutral alternatives to accomplish its purpose of attaining a diverse student body, even if they could
not reach a good enough substitute mechanism “Race-neutral alternatives such as a lottery system
or decreasing the emphasis on grade point average (GPA) and Law School Admission Test (LSAT)
scores were considered and would require a dramatic sacrifice of diversity, the academic quality
of all admitted students, or both” (Grutter v. Bollinger). As for past discrimination, the Court
admitted that some of its previous rulings might have contributed to suggesting that
“remedying past discrimination is the only permissible justification for race-based governmental
action” (Grutter v. Bollinger). In spite of that, it was never expressly declared by the Court that
maintaining a sole purpose of redressing past discrimination could survive the strict scrutiny test
of race-conscious admission programs as set the by the US Supreme Court.
Above all, the Court discussed the nature of affirmative action and whether it should be
only recognized as transitional policy or not. The Court expressly stated that affirmative action
must be limited in time, and Justice O’Connor voiced her own opinion when she said that “the
Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to
further the interest approved today” (Grutter v. Bollinger).
On the same day the US Supreme Court ruled upon Grutter v. Bollinger, it decided upon
another notable case: Gratz v. Bollinger. This time around, the affirmative action applied by the
University of Michigan Office of Undergraduate Admissions (hereinafter referred to as "OUA”)
was not approved by the Court. The facts of the case read as follows:
“Beginning in 1998, the OUA used a point system in which students were awarded an
additional 20 points for being a member of an underrepresented minority, and beginning
in 1999, the University established an Admissions Review Committee to provide an

11. Shehata 11
additional level of consideration. In 1995, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher both
applied for admission to the University of Michigan’ College of Literature, Science, and
the Arts (LSA) as residents of the state of Michigan. Both are of Caucasian descent. Both
were denied admission and told that, although they were qualified, they were not
competitive enough applicants to be admitted on first review” (“Gratz v. Bollinger”).
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the 6-3 majority’s decision
whereby the Court held that “the OUA’s policies were not sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet
the strict scrutiny standard. Because the policy did not provide individual consideration, but rather
resulted in the admission of nearly every applicant of “underrepresented minority” status” (“Gratz
v. Bollinger”). The Court further elaborated on such issue when it stated that: “Equal protection
rights of Caucasian applicants to (LSA) were violated by University's policy of automatically
distributing 20 points, or one-fifth of those needed to guarantee admission, to every single
“underrepresented minority” applicant solely because of race” (“Gratz v. Bollinger”). In brief, the
reason the Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan in the first case and not the second
one – as analyzed by Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Education Fund - is the
fact that OUA in the second case used “a system that assigned points for certain factors such as
geography, legacy/alumni relationships, including race” while Michigan Law School in the first
case adopted a “more holistic approach, resulting in an overall score for each applicant” (“Legal
cases related to affirmative action” 3).
In light of the above, both cases provided a clear analysis of what can be defined as the
“scrutiny test of the compelling interest of diversity”. The Court broke down the “scrutiny test of
the compelling interest of diversity” into 5 integral elements: “(1) individualized consideration for

12. Shehata 12
each applicant; (2) the absence of a "quota" system; (3) serious, good faith consideration of race-
neutral alternatives; (4) lack of undue harm to members of other racial groups; and (5) time
limitations on the program.” (Everett and Cheatham 233). According to the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights Education Fund, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke as a binding precedent whereby it “supported the University of
Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program and specifically endorsed Justice Powell’s
view …that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in
university admissions” (“History of affirmative action policies” 6). In short, the Court provided a
comprehensive statement about its long-standing position with regard to affirmative action, as it
“rejected the view that its decisions since Bakke had either expressly or impliedly rejected
diversity as a compelling interest or indicated that remedying historical discrimination was the
only justification for race-based determinations” (Everett and Cheatham 233).
C- University of Texas, 2016:
The Court most recently reaffirmed its previous views, as it clung to the notion of
"compelling interest of diversity" in June 2016 in Fisher v. Texas. The petitioner, in this case, was
Abigail Fisher, a white female whose admission to the University of Texas was denied. Fisher did
not “qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent
of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers
many factors, including race” (“Fisher v. Texas”). The US Supreme Court in a 4-3 ruling held that
the “University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate
the Equal Protection Clause” (“Fisher v. Texas”). The Court explained that this decision was
rendered in favor of the University of Texas because the latter’s race-conscious policy “in the
holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored

13. Shehata 13
to serve a compelling state interest” (“Fisher v. Texas”). More notably, the Court ruled that
“Considerable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like
student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission” (Fisher v. University
of Texas at Austin). However, “no deference” is owed to the university “when determining whether
the use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the university’s permissible goals” (Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin). In brief, each university has the right to shape its mission in
according with its policy without any restrictions imposed by the US Supreme Court. However, if
the race is used as part of a university's policy, then the US Supreme Court has a duty to supervise
such policy and ensure that any race-conscious policy applied by the university is narrowly
tailored. In addition, there were “no other available and workable alternatives” ("Fisher v. Texas”)
other than such policy for accomplishing a diverse student body. The Court went on to explain that
“none of petitioner’s suggested alternatives— nor other proposals considered or discussed in the
course of this litigation—have been shown to be “available” and “workable” means through which
the University could have met its educational goals” (Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin).
Despite the fact that Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin ruling was in line with the US
Supreme Court’s Michigan University precedents in 2003, it is still unclear for how long such
principles will continue to be upheld by the Court. After all, affirmative action was categorized by
the Court merely as a transitional mechanism that should be limited in time. Justice O’Connor was
hoping that an effective and a feasible race-neutral substitute policy would somehow be introduced
into the admission programs of US universities by the year 2028. One only can wait and see then
if the US Supreme Court will have changed its mind by that time.

14. Shehata 14
II- Opponents’ Arguments:
A- Mismatching Effect:
This argument pivots around the mismatching effect of affirmative action policies.
The Mismatching effect can be considered as one of the sturdiest pillars of counter-affirmative
action arguments. Only one year after Michigan University’s remarkable rulings in 2003, Richard
H. Sander a Law Professor at UCLA compiled a research in 2004 entitled "A Systemic Analysis
of Affirmative Action In American Law Schools" to demonstrate how affirmative action policies
actually hurt rather than help black students in Law Schools as “8.2% of the white students”
comparable to “19.2% of the black students” who were admitted to Law School in 1991 “had not
graduated by the end of the study five years later” (Sander 436).
Sander can be considered as one of the most prominent opponents of affirmative action
and he reached the following six conclusions:
“1) Black students as a whole are at a substantial academic disadvantage when they attend
schools that used preferences to admit them. As a consequence, they perform poorly as a
group throughout law school…2) Entering black law students are 135% more likely than
white students to not get a law degree…3) Blacks are nearly six times as likely as whites
to not pass state bar exams after multiple attempts…4) When blacks pass the bar and enter
the job market, they encounter a generally positive climate. Blacks earn 6% to 9% more
early in their careers than do whites seeking similar jobs with similar credentials…5) In
2001, about 86% of all black students who attended accredited American law schools
would have been eligible for admission at one or more law schools in the total absence of
racial preferences. System-wide, racial preferences expand the pool of blacks in law school
by only 14%...6) When one takes into account the corrosive effects of racial preferences

15. Shehata 15
on the chances of all black law students to graduate and pass the bar, these preferences
probably tend, system-wide, to shrink rather than expand the total number of new black
lawyers each year. If all preferences were abolished, the data … suggests that the number
of black attorneys emerging from the class of 2004 would be 7% larger than it is. The
number of black attorneys passing the bar on their first attempt would be 20% larger” (478-
479).
In a word, Sander believes that if it had not been for the affirmative action policies
implemented in US law schools, the American society would have had more lawyers of African
origin in the long-term. This is quite an unusual finding; it would mean that affirmative action was
a failed technique in American law schools. Further to Sander’ statistical conclusions, Justice
Clarence Thomas - who is only the second African-American Justice to serve on the US Supreme
Court - tried to use the same methodology to analyze the facts of the most recent case of affirmative
action in US universities: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin). Based on his analysis, he
claimed in his article “"Affirmative Action Is Racial Discrimination" that overmatched students
are harmed for the following reasons:
“Blacks ...admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far
less prepared than their white and Asian classmates. In the University [of Texas]'s entering
class of 2009, for example, among the students admitted outside the Top Ten Percent plan,
blacks scored at the 52d percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, while Asians scored at
the 93d percentile. Blacks had a mean GPA of 2.57 and a mean SAT score of
1524… whites had a mean GPA of 3.04 and a mean SAT score of 1914…The University
[of Texas] admits minorities who otherwise would have attended less selective colleges
where they would have been more evenly matched. But, as a result of the mismatching,

16. Shehata 16
many blacks … who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position
where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared
than the white … with whom they must compete…there is no evidence that they learn more
at the University than they would have learned at other schools for which they were better
prepared. Indeed, they may learn less” (Thomas).
According to this argument, affirmative action has not helped black students to go to college
or Law School. The targeted African-Americans would have been admitted anyway. Justice
Thomas and Professor Sander are adamant that affirmative action was barking up the wrong tree
for all this time; affirmative action actually made it worse because these students were
underqualified to attend elite colleges or Law Schools. In summary, affirmative action might have
indirectly increased the drop-out rates of black students in colleges and Law Schools.
B- Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination:
Then comes the second most fundamental pillar of counter-affirmative action
arguments; reverse discrimination. A statement was made over and over that affirmative action is
in fact masked reverse discrimination; American society cannot cure past racial discrimination
against the blacks by installing a new version of racial discrimination instead. This time around,
its racial discrimination against the white majority of American citizens. According to a website
article entitled “Affirmative Action Overview”, a few scholars feel that racial preferences could
lead to undesirable and unforgivable results, as there is a concern that blacks “may be stigmatized
and treated differently by peers and professors who may believe that the success of minority groups
in higher education institutions is unearned” (National Conference of State Legislatures). Under
the same article, it appears that others contest that such policies are flagrantly violating the US
constitution; not only do these policies contradict with Equal Protection Clause, but they also

17. Shehata 17
encroach upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which "prohibits discrimination based on race, color
or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance” (National Conference of State
Legislatures). Justice Thomas has opposed extensively and in countless occasions the affirmative
action policies for violating and defying the Equal Protection Clause under the US constitution. In
Gratz v. Bollinger, Justice Thomas mentioned that “the admission policy in question failed because
it did not allow for sufficient consideration of non-racial factors in determining the admissibility
of a candidate from an underrepresented minority group” (“Gratz v. Bollinger”). Most recently,
Justice Thomas dissented the majority opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin stating
that he would "overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, and hold that a State's use of race in higher education
admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause." Furthermore,
Justice Thomas dug deep into US history to further solidify his convictions. He claimed that by
going back into US history, one can see for himself how any form of racial preference has always
proved to be harmful:
“I suspect that the University's program is instead based on the benighted notion that it is
possible to tell when discrimination helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities.... The worst
forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced
representations that discrimination helped minorities. Slaveholders argued that slavery was a
"positive good" that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life.... A century
later, segregationists similarly asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black
students. They argued, for example, that separate schools protected black children from racist
white students and teachers.... Following in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would
have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear
enough: Racial discrimination is never benign.... The University's professed good intentions

18. Shehata 18
cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now
denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists” (Fisher v. University of Texas at
Austin).
Justice Thomas feels that affirmative action opens new doors for discrimination and this shakes
the balance of American society. To compare affirmative action to the segregation policies in the
1950s is a bold and a daring proclamation. In a nutshell, Justice Thomas, as well as others, believe
that adopting affirmative action has been like falling from grace.
III- Proponents’ Arguments:
A- Compelling Interest of Diversity:
The principle upon which the US Supreme Court approved affirmative action policies
throughout its history is called “a compelling interest of diversity”. The American Council on
Education and the American Association of University Professors (hereinafter referred to
collectively as “ACE & AAUP”) prepared a research report entitled "Does Diversity Make a
Difference? A Research Report”. In other words, should US universities even bother striving to
accomplish a diverse student body? First and foremost, ACE & AAUP provided us with their
reasons behind researching such a controversial subject and how this affected their research
methodology:
“During the more than 20 years that have passed since the Bakke decision, scholars have
paid little attention to faculty members’ and administrators’ experiences regarding the
educational impact of racial and ethnic diversity. Instead, research has focused either on
access…or adaptation. what their experiences and retention rates are, and what kinds of
support programs and campus climates they face. But researchers have not examined

19. Shehata 19
whether the experts—college administrators and faculty members—actually find that
diversity produces positive outcomes. Nevertheless, the limited scholarship that does exist
has consistently shown that racial and ethnic diversity has both direct and indirect positive
effects on the educational outcomes and experiences of college students” (3).
ACE & AAUP found that believing that a climate of vigorous debate can enrich such
debate is not a new belief, but rather “dates back to Socratic tradition” (10). In this regard, they
reached this decisive conclusion that “attention to multicultural learning extends the meaning of
personal, social, and moral growth and improves the capacity of colleges and universities to
achieve their missions” (5). In addition, this research was able to enlist three all-encompassing
themes across college classrooms “(1) racial and ethnic diversity is necessary but not sufficient for
creating the most effective educational environment; (2) racial and ethnic diversity increases the
educational possibilities of the classroom; and (3) multi-racial/multi-ethnic classes enhance
educational outcomes” (62). These themes can help us understand the atmosphere of a classroom
and how diversity can be a factor in enriching the discussions in classrooms.
Furthermore, ACE & AAUP could not find available alternatives for diversity which can
produce the same results, as “racial and ethnic diversity on campus provides educational benefits
for all students—minority and white alike—that cannot be duplicated in a racially and ethnically
homogeneous setting” (2). The most striking finding of the survey is that “faculty members
strongly believe that racially and ethnically diverse classrooms enrich the educational experience
of white students” (4). One of the participant faculty members said that “I need the diversity in
class to have people share their experiences…In the multiple people, I get a diverse set of
experiences” (70). Finally, ACE & AAUP concluded that “successful attacks on the
constitutionality of affirmative action in college admissions are now limiting institutions’ authority

20. Shehata 20
to ensure racial and ethnic diversity in their student populations. If the observations and
conclusions of this study are accurate, these institutions are being denied an important educational
tool for preparing students for their own futures as well as that of society” (72).
In summary, ACE & AAUP were able to provide American society with concrete results
showing all of us the other side of the story. Affirmative action is not only for the good or the
benefit of blacks; it is rather a win-win situation. Eventually, ACE & AAUP implored American
society to not let affirmative action withers on the vine and to let everyone "blacks and whites"
know what success tastes like.
B- Theory of Six Degrees of Separation & Michigan Law School’s
Aftermath:
Malcolm Gladwell posted a remarkable article in 1999 entitled “Six Degrees of Lois
Weisberg” which gave a brief overview of the theory of six degrees of separation. He went on to
talk about a sociologist named Mark Granovetter and his mind-blowing experiments in 1974:
“Granovetter interviewed several hundred professional and technical workers from the
Boston suburb of Newton, asking them in detail about their employment history. He found
that almost fifty-six per cent of those he talked to had found their jobs through a personal
connection, about twenty per cent had used formal means (advertisements, headhunters),
and another twenty percent had applied directly" (Gladwell).
Gladwell was not surprised by such finding as “the best way to get in the door is through a
personal contact” (Gladwell). However, there was another part of the experiment that would most
likely surprise almost everyone: “the majority of those personal connections…did not involve
close friends” (Gladwell). Granovetter called such connections ““weak ties” as “of those who used
a contact to find a job, for example, only 16.7 percent saw that contact "often," as they would have

21. Shehata 21
if the contact had been a good friend; 55.6 percent saw their contact only "occasionally"; and 27.8
percent saw the contact "rarely”” (Gladwell). In other words, “people were getting their jobs not
through their friends but through acquaintances…the most important people in your life are… the
people who aren’t closest to you” (Gladwell). This means that it does not matter how close you
are to other people; but how many people you know. The quantity and identity of one's connections
prevail over the quality of any of one’s connections. This is quite an enthralling, captivating and
fascinating finding.
Gladwell has drawn a unique connection between such experiment along with its striking
result, and the notion of affirmative action. He expounded the details of such connection:
“this is why affirmative action seems pointless to so many people: It appears to promise
something — entry to the old-boy network — that it can’t possibly deliver. The old-boy network
is always going to be just for the old boys…. If you think about the world in this way, the whole
project of affirmative action suddenly starts to make a lot more sense. Minority-admissions
programs work not because they give black students access to the same superior educational
resources as white students, or access to the same rich cultural environment as white students, or
any other formal or grandiose vision of engineered equality. They work by giving black students
access to the same white students as white students — by allowing them to make acquaintances
outside their own social world and so shortening the chain lengths between them and the best jobs”
(Gladwell).
Gladwell articulately – as usual – gave his readers a new perspective of affirmative action;
it merely resembles an opportunity to a bunch of underprivileged blacks to get acquainted with the
“movers and shakers” of the US. An opportunity to infiltrate what Gladwell described as the “old-
boy network”.

22. Shehata 22
In his book Outliers, Gladwell wrote extensively about the effect of one's background on
one’s own success, and how some backgrounds could offer unique opportunities that would pave
one’s pathway to success. Gladwell elaborated on the controversy associated with affirmative
action policies, but Gladwell viewed this issue from a different angle. Sander provided some
statistics which might have proven that blacks did not fare well in Law School, but for Gladwell,
this was not the measure of success. Gladwell measured success in terms of life after Law School
rather than the passing rate in the bar exam. Gladwell adopted this approach with Michigan Law
School as he mentioned that:
“A few years ago, however, the University of Michigan decided to look closely at how the law
school’s minority students had fared after they graduated. How much money did they make?
How far up in the profession did they go? How satisfied were they with their careers? What
kind of social and community contributions did they make? What kind of honors had they
won? They looked at everything that could conceivably be an indication of real-world success.
And what they found surprised them…. “I think our expectation was that we would find a half-
or two-thirds- full glass, that they had not done as well as the white students but nonetheless a
lot were quite successful. We found that they were doing every bit as well. There was no place
we saw any serious discrepancy.” What Lempert is saying is that …they’re just as successful
as white students” (Gladwell, Outliers 85).
Gladwell explained the reasons for such surprising findings by Michigan Law School; it’s not
only that Michigan African-Americans students were offered the opportunity to be connected to a
lot of whites who obviously had good connections, but there was also something else. These
students were smart enough to make the most of such opportunities:

23. Shehata 23
“Even though…minority students at Michigan aren’t as good as those of white students, the
quality of students at the law school is high enough that they’re still above the threshold. They
are smart enough. Knowledge of a law student’s test scores is of little help if you are faced
with a classroom of clever law students” (Gladwell, Outliers 86).
To come to the point, it is clear that Gladwell believes that there are two hidden factors people
should think of when contemplating the implementation of affirmative action policies in the US.
First and foremost, if one gets access to people with better opportunities, one –whether black or
white- will be extended similar precious opportunities. If it had not been for affirmative action,
blacks would not have gained access to such opportunities. Second, these black students obviously
had what it takes to succeed in the future; they were smart enough to take full advantage of their
experiences in an enriching and diverse community as Michigan Law School.
IV- Conclusion: Keeping and Reforming Affirmative Action:
A- Why do we need to keep Affirmative Action?
There are several reasons that should make American society think twice before abolishing or
abrogating affirmative action policies, especially in the field of education. Affirmative action
policies offer new channels for historically underprivileged sections of the society to explore and
interact with other historically successful communities. When blacks mingle and mix with whites,
this opens extra pathways for blacks to achieve success. In addition, we must not forget that those
who make it are usually –as Gladwell puts in his own words – “smart enough” to succeed in the
real-world life. So, why not give these unique individuals an opportunity to thrive, and influence
others within their community to do the same.
Above all, I would like to refer to the results of the research conducted by ACE & AAUP
which proved that a highly diverse student body is as essential to whites as to blacks. This finding

24. Shehata 24
is a game changer. It should change the way some whites think about affirmative action because
at the end of the day education is a two-way street. Furthermore, it is clear that there are no other
alternatives that can be implemented and offer the same results as affirmative action. The US
Supreme Court itself noted that this is one of the reasons affirmative action should be kept in place
as long as there is no substitute technique for achieving diversity. Besides, the universities where
statewide bans were imposed against affirmative action were not able to sustain the same rate of
diversity after such bans. In light of all these reasons, affirmative action –in my opinion - should
be kept in US educational institutions.
B- What aspects need to be reformed in Affirmative Action?
Affirmative action still has some room to develop. The efficiency of affirmative action
policies can be improved by introducing several tweaks. First of all, the opportunities offered by
affirmative action can be enhanced by providing the black community as well as other deprived
minorities with access to special schools. In essence, these schools will have longer school days
and shorter summer vacations. The rationale behind my suggestion lies within Gladwell's book:
Outliers. Gladwell offered his readers a different perspective of the education process in US public
schools, as he stated that “the long summer vacation - a peculiar and distinctive American legacy
that has had profound consequences for the learning patterns of the students of the present day”
(Gladwell, Outliers 254-255). Gladwell provided us with the recipe for success as applied by one
of the charter schools in New York (KIPP) when he said, “KIPP’s response is simply not to have
a long summer vacation” (261). “it seems counterintuitive but we do things at a slower pace and
as a result we get through a lot more” (262). A comparison was drawn by Gladwell between two
young kids to illustrate how a school as KIPP can be the key to success. “Alex Williams… his
parents believed in concerted cultivation. He gets taken to museums and gets enrolled in special

25. Shehata 25
programs and goes to summer camp, where he takes classes… It’s not hard to see how Alex would
get better at reading and math over the summer” (258). On the other hand, Katie was a totally
different story, as she was the “little girl from the other side of the tracks. There’s no money to
send her to summer camp…There’s probably just a television” (259). Alex comes from a wealthy
family, while Katie comes from a poor family. That was the difference between both of them until
Katie was offered the opportunity to enroll in KIPP, strive for excellence, and be on equal footing
with Alex. Thus, this strategy could help with increasing the retention rate of young
underprivileged children, preparing them for a college education, and providing them with better
opportunities to succeed in the future.
Secondly, blacks and other underprivileged minorities suffer because they are surrounded by
negative and depressing environment. Most of such minorities live in poor conditions where drugs
and crime are everywhere. This makes the black and marginalized communities have low
expectations of their own offspring. In the Other Wes Moore, the criminal protagonist in the book
told his story and how other people’s expectations “that you take on as your own” (Moore 126)
affected his pathway in life. This person’s upbringing was not privileged, but rather surrounded
with drugs and crime. After a while, he was sucked into such life and it was not money that dragged
him; it was something else. There was “an unbreakable bond united the crew – for many members,
it was the only support system they had. It was family” (111). In a nutshell, the surrounding
environment really matters to one’s own success. That’s why I believe that the only way to
radically change such environment is to invest in family and community. Only then, one can hope
that the outcome of the gutter would be positive. To understand how families can pave the way to
success, one can read about the differences between Christopher Langan; the genius who has an
IQ of 195 – even better than Albert Einstein whose IQ is only 150 –, and Robert Oppenheimer

26. Shehata 26
who was the head of the atomic bomb project in the US. “If Christopher had been born into a
wealthy family.... He would have been knocking back PhDs at seventeen” (Gladwell, Outliers
110). “These were things that others, with lesser minds, could master easily. But that’s because
those others had had help along the way, and Chris Langan never had. It wasn’t an excuse. It was
a fact” (114-115). That’s maybe the reason not many people have heard about Chris Langan and
his pure ingenuity, while almost everyone knows about the atomic bomb and probably knows who
Robert Oppenheimer is.
In light of my suggestion, I think that the key to investing in family and community is not
by simply giving money or amenities and that’s it. This would not benefit anyone. I suggest
investing in the mentality of family, and one way to accomplish this feat is by following the steps
of Kennedy Odede and Jessica Posner in Find Me Unafraid: “Our idea is that instead of collecting
money, we will require families to volunteer at the school five weeks a year in exchange for their
daughter’s educations” (258). This strategy would help the families develop a sense of ownership
and feel how they can really contribute to the success of next generations. Finally, I would like to
note that one needs to accept the fact that success is not usually a rags-to-riches story. If one looks
into the stories of Bill Gates, Billy Joy, Robert Oppenheimer, John D. Rockefeller, and Joe Flom
(a famous New York Lawyer), one can understand that their success is not “exceptional or
mysterious. “It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not,
some earned, some just plain lucky – but all critical to making them who they are. The outlier, in
the end, is not an outlier at all” (Gladwell, Outliers 285).
In conclusion, the US has “benefited beyond measure from this new vision of what it
means to learn and what it means to teach. Part of the evidence is a vibrant economy, a rich array
of social and political activists committed to civic participation, and the remarkable surge of

27. Shehata 27
productivity and creativity in our music, art, and literature” ("Does Diversity Make a Difference?
A Research Report" 72). That's why one can only hope that the US as a society would keep on
implementing affirmative action as a national policy in education. And then try to reform it to
integrate as much deprived minorities as possible, so that such minorities would contribute to the
success of American society.

28. Shehata 28
Works Cited
Curry, George E. "Affirmative Action Polls Show Deep Racial Gulf." Washington Informer 27
June 2013: 26+. Newspaper Source Plus. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.
Everett, Yifan C., and Sarah Hampton Cheatham. "Affirmative Action In Education
[Article]." Georgetown Journal Of Gender And The Law 1 (2013): 219. HeinOnline. Web.
23 Nov. 2016.
Fessenden, Ford and Josh Keller. "How Minorities Have Fared in States With Affirmative Action
Bans." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 June 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
“Fisher v. University of Texas.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov
18, 2016.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. 579 U. S. ____. Supreme Court of the US. June 23, 2016.
Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U. Law School, n.d. Web. 23
Nov. 2016.
Gladwell, Malcolm. "Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg." Malcolm Gladwell. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov.
2016.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown, 2008. Print.
“Gratz v. Bollinger.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 18, 2016.
Gratz v. Bollinger. 539 U.S. 244. Supreme Court of the US. June 23, 2003. Supreme Court
Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U. Law School, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
“Grutter v. Bollinger.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 18, 2016.
Grutter v. Bollinger. 539 U.S. 306. Supreme Court of the US. June 23, 2003. Supreme Court
Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U. Law School, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Education Fund. “Legal cases related to

29. Shehata 29
affirmative action.” The. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Education Fund. “History of affirmative action
policies.” The. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.
Maclaury, Judson. "President Kennedy’s E.O. 10925: Seedbed of Affirmative Action." Society for
History in the Federal Government 2 (2010): 42-57. Jan. 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.
Mark, Helm. "Lawsuit over affirmative action policies has many `friends'; Briefs supporting
Michigan policy exceed opponents." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) 30 Mar. 2003:
25. News Bank - Archives. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.
Moore, Wes. The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates. NY, NY: Spiegel & Grau, 2010.
Print.
National Conference of State Legislatures. "Affirmative Action | Overview." Affirmative Action |
Overview. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Odede, Kennedy, and Jessica Posner. Find Me Unafraid: Love, Loss, and Hope in an African Slum.
New York, NY: Ecco, an Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 2015. Print.
“Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.” Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois
Tech, n.d. Nov 17, 2016.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke. 438 U.S. 265. Supreme Court of the US. June 28,
1978. Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Inst., Cornell U. Law School, n.d.
Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Sander, Richard H. "A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action In American Law
Schools." Stanford Law Review 57. (2004): 367. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews.
Web. 23 Nov. 2016.
Thomas, Clarence. "Affirmative Action Is Racial Discrimination." College Admissions. Ed.

30. Shehata 30
Dedria Bryfonski. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies.
Rpt. from "Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin et al." 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.