Supreme Court's Dangerous Mix-Up of Diversity and Affirmative Action

By Daniel M. Levy, Director for Law and Policy, Michigan Department of Civil Rights


Photo by Shutterstock

In October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case asking whether an applicant’s race may ever be considered in university admissions. Based on the justices’ questions and (even worse) the answers, the court appears ready to decide the wrong case. Listening to the argument, one would think Michigan’s universities used “affirmative action” or “racial preferences” in their admissions policies. They do not.

The Case That IS Before the Court

Michigan’s universities have long recognized that a diverse student body serves the academic interests of ALL students. The Supreme Court, in the 2003 Gratz case, declared that designating particular race(s) for special affirmative-admissions advantages is unconstitutional. On the same day, however, the court also issued the Grutter opinion declaring that because student-body diversity is a “compelling interest” of a university, it is constitutional for a school to consider race as one of many admissions factors when diversity cannot be achieved in any other way.

In an effort to nullify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Grutter, Michigan voters passed a referendum amending the state’s constitution to prohibit race-based “preferential treatment” in university admissionseven when racial diversity serves the academic interests of all students and cannot otherwise be achieved.

While Michigan voters may have intended to reverse the court’s Grutter decision permitting diversity, the language they chose covers only the kinds of affirmative action and preferential treatment the court had already prohibited in Gratz.

Diversity and Affirmative Action Are NOT the Same

The court seems intent on treating this as an “affirmative action” case, thereby failing to recognize what you may already be thinking: Although diversity and affirmative action might have similar results, they are fundamentally different in both intent and operation.

A2 is a remedy for past discrimination, intended to correct the wrong done to a minority group by affirmatively offering special advantages to that minority groupeven at the expense of members of the majority. In university admissions, A2 prefers the minority group’s objective of correcting past harms over the majority’s objective of admitting applicants who best advance the interests of the entire student body.

Diversity, in contrast, is not focused on minority concerns. It is designed to benefit all (and particularly majority) students by exposing them to each other. Universities have determined that students benefit academically from being part of a racially diverse student body, and that diversity better prepares students for career success. Most large employers agree, indicating they prefer hiring graduates from racially diverse universities. In short, diversity is sought primarily for the benefit it provides to non-minority students.

So how does a program implemented to benefit white students get branded as anti-white discrimination Simple: Critics seek only the opinions of applicants (or, in this case, the wider public) whose concerns are not focused on the academic reputation of the institution or the academic interests of admitted students. Diversity does not place the interests of one race over another; it puts the interest of all students ahead of applicants.

Diversity Is NOT Racial “Preference”

The Supreme Court phrased its question as whether a state can constitutionally prohibit race-based “preferential treatment” in public-university admissions. Formulated that way, the answer should be “Who cares Gratz already prohibits ‘preferential treatment.'”

When an orchestra determines that it wants to include every instrument, which instrument does it have a “preference” for When diversity is the goal, the only “preference” is for everyone.

Why It Matters

The problem exposed during oral argument was that the constitutionality of prohibiting diversity efforts was debated using only the terminology of affirmative action.

The Michigan law before the court prohibits “affirmative action” and race-based “preferential treatment,” both of which the Court said in Gratz are unconstitutional. Whatever its intent, the wording used in the Michigan referendum merely requires Michigan to do what the court already ruled that federal law requires. Before it evaluates the constitutionality of the Michigan law, the court must determine whether the law will somehow be read to also prohibit universities from pursuing the broad student diversity that serves all students.

Only then can the court properly return to the underlying question: In a state where all admissions policies are determined by university boards based on what’s best for that university and its students, is it constitutional to create a different process requiring a majority vote of the general public for, and only for, policies involving minorities

In Grutter, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the benefits diversity provides to all students. It must now explicitly recognize what it implicitly recognized 10 years ago by deciding Grutter and Gratz on the same day: There is a difference between affirmative action’s preference for the interests of one race over another and diversity’s raison d’tre, that every group benefits from the inclusion of all others.

Latest News

Anti-Asian Racism in the United States Continues to Soar as a Result of Attitudes Over COVID-19; the Myth of ‘Defund the Police’; and More

Pandemic continues to cause soaring levels of anti-Asian racism. It was only a matter of time: the White House’s constant referral to COVID-19 as the “China Virus” has indeed caused a tidal wave of continuing racism against people of Asian ancestry, according to a new report published in the American…

Biden Stands by His Commitment to LGBTQ rights; Cost of Racism in the U.S. Tops $16 Trillion; Black and Latinx Continue to Die from COVID-19 at Nearly Twice the Rate of Whites; and More

Biden reaffirms commitment to LGBTQ rights; promises to pass Equality Act. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden doubled down on his promises to the LGBTQ community while speaking at a presidential town hall for the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on Sept. 24. “You deserve a partner in the White House to…

degeneres, work, show

Leadership Lessons to be Gleaned from Ellen DeGeneres’ Toxic Workplace Scandal

Ellen DeGeneres began her daytime talk show’s 18th season with an apology after a summer of allegations against her that claimed her show promoted a toxic work environment rife with racism, sexual misconduct and other mistreatment. In August 2020, three senior producers — executive producers Ed Glavin and Kevin Leman…

COVID entrepreneur

Explosive New Growth in Small Businesses Due to COVID-19; America’s Police Force is Not Becoming More Diverse Despite BLM Movement; the Best and Worst Performing States in the 2020 Census; and More

Even with incredible nationwide unemployment rates, the creation of new small and diverse businesses has exploded due to COVID-19. Finally some news coming out of our pandemic: The Philadelphia Tribune reports that as bars and restaurants closed and stay-at-home orders were put into place earlier in 2020 to help fight…

Justice for Breonna not served; The essential rule of politics; Teen serves two months in jail for not doing homework; and More

Justice for Breonna not served as grand jury indicted officer who shot her with wanton endangerment — but not murder. “Outrageous and offensive.” Those were  by attorney to the family, Ben Crump to describe the grand jury’s decision in the March 13 fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Breonna Taylor. While…

IBM, EEOC, age

EEOC Unearths Years of Intentional Age Discrimination within IBM

After a long investigation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revealed that IBM leaders had directed managers to replace older workers with younger ones. Between 2013 and 2018, nearly 86% of those considered for layoffs within the organization were older employees over the age of 40. The investigation showed…

Breathe March in Globe Park, New York, USA - 12 Sep 2020

Cities under attack from the Justice Department; Louisville bracing for the Breonna Taylor murder charge; Twitter reveals its racist side; and More

Justice department attacks three U.S. cities, declaring them anarchist zones — despite most of the protests that took place in each city being peaceful marches in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. In a move designed to pull federal funding from New York City, Seattle and Portland, OR, the…