Why the Supreme Court Should Never Have Taken the Texas Affirmative Action Case

The law, lawyers, and the court.
Feb. 29 2012 7:19 AM

Bad Marriage

Why the Supreme Court should stay out of affirmative action.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
The last time the Court addressed affirmative action, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority

Photograph by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

The national conversation about affirmative action resembles a couple’s therapy session in a dysfunctional marriage: full of posturing, obfuscation, misdirection, outright lies—everything except an honest discussion of the relevant conflict. This is due in no small part to the blundering of the Supreme Court, which, like an incompetent therapist, has encouraged anger and distrust while making it harder to confront the root causes of disagreement. Last week the justices announced that they will, for the second time in 10 years, address the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education in the case of Fisher v. Texas. The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant to the University of Texas who complained that black and Latino applicants received preferential treatment based on race. Sound familiar? That’s because in 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School that was basically identical. And the holding in that case, Grutter v. Bollinger, was largely a rehash of the 1978 Supreme Court opinion that’s the mother of them all.

All of this goes to show that affirmative action is the kind of political controversy the courts should stay out of. Even if you think affirmative action is bad policy, it’s not a new Jim Crow, as its opponents claim when they say it’s unconstitutional. Voters are perfectly capable of rejecting affirmative action through the political process, as they have in California. The Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions have been a disaster: They haven’t made university admissions any fairer, and they’ve sown confusion, resentment, and frustration. Fisher v. Texas promises more of the same: No matter what the Court does, it can only make matters worse.  

The trouble started in 1978 with University of California Regents v. Bakke. In that case the justices confronted a crude racial quota system. The University of California at Davis essentially set up two admission tracks—one for minority applicants and one of whites. The court invalidated this, as a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, because it made race the most decisive factor in admissions. Along the way, the majority of five split by four to one, which means that Justice Louis Powell’s opinion, though it spoke only for him, actually stood for the position of the court as a whole. Unfortunately, the case is now best known for Powell’s idea that “diversity”—and pretty much only diversity—could justify considering race in university admissions. Today most people understand diversity to be vaguely synonymous with racial integration, but according to Powell’s opinion in Bakke, it refers strictly to the pedagogical benefits of a racially mixed student body. Classroom discussions and extracurricular interactions will be deeper and more complex, the argument goes, when students from a variety of backgrounds bring their experiences to bear on the political and social issues of the day. The government’s interest in these pedagogical benefits is sufficiently compelling to allow for classifying students by race for the purpose of admissions.

Advertisement

Powell’s opinion in Bakke made this relatively weak argument for affirmative action the only one universities could openly talk about. The diversity rationale kept affirmative action afloat, but it sank any chance of an honest exploration of the reasons we might need it. Before Bakke, one heard a number of reasonable alternatives: Affirmative action was a way for universities to correct the detrimental effects of pervasive discrimination. It was a way to train professionals who would be more likely to work in underserved minority communities. It allowed selective universities that often favored the mostly white children of alumni to extend their educational mission to excluded groups. After Bakke, this discussion was stifled in the very institutions we rely on to study and evaluate difficult social policy questions. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger merely compounded the problem by repeating Powell.

Thanks to Bakke, the discussion of affirmative action is usually downright silly. As a law professor, for me nothing is more depressing than listening to an otherwise sensible and intelligent student insist that he can see no difference between Jim Crow segregation and an affirmative action policy (this is a the fundamental mistake underlying the Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence). Unless it’s an equally smart student’s earnest attempt to explain why, yes, there really is a distinctively African-American approach to structural engineering. We can blame the Supreme Court for these weird distortions.

Now we’re told that the Court in Fisher v. Texas will settle the question once and for all. But isn’t that what the Court was supposed to have done in Bakke back in 1978, and then in Grutter less than 10 years ago? What’s far more likely is another opinion of the high court that articulates yet another obtuse legal standard, leaving more confusion and dishonesty in its wake. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the new swing vote on these questions (now that O’Connor has been replaced by Sam Alito on the right), doesn’t much like race consciousness, but he hasn’t been quite ready to say that it’s always unconstitutional.  Because the conservative justices (Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia, along with Alito) need Kennedy’s vote to command a majority, the most likely outcome is another convoluted “clarification” that further limits affirmative action without invalidating it entirely.

TODAY IN SLATE

Foreigners

More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

What Charles Barkley Gets Wrong About Corporal Punishment and Black Culture

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge

Politics

The GOP’s Focus on Fake Problems

Why candidates like Scott Walker are building campaigns on drug tests for the poor and voter ID laws.

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

Is It Worth Paying Full Price for the iPhone 6 to Keep Your Unlimited Data Plan? We Crunch the Numbers.

Farewell! Emily Bazelon on What She Will Miss About Slate.

  News & Politics
Weigel
Sept. 16 2014 7:03 PM Kansas Secretary of State Loses Battle to Protect Senator From Tough Race
  Business
Moneybox
Sept. 16 2014 4:16 PM The iPhone 6 Marks a Fresh Chance for Wireless Carriers to Kill Your Unlimited Data
  Life
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 8:43 PM This 17-Minute Tribute to David Fincher Is the Perfect Preparation for Gone Girl
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 6:40 PM This iPhone 6 Feature Will Change Weather Forecasting
  Health & Science
Science
Sept. 16 2014 4:09 PM It’s All Connected What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.