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

Novartis Chief Medical Officer John Tsai on Balancing Medical Innovations With Patient Needs

Originally published at novartis.com by Elizabeth Dougherty. John Tsai is Novartis’ Head of Global Drug Development and Chief Medical Officer. Novartis Pharmaceuticals is a DiversityInc Hall of Fame company.   John Tsai’s career as a physician, and now as Head of Global Drug Development and Chief Medical Officer for Novartis, had an unlikely…

Montgomery Mayor Steven Reed

City of Montgomery, Alabama Faces $25,000 State Fine for Changing Street Named After a Confederate Leader

Despite a state law designed to “protect” longstanding Confederate monuments and memorials, the city of Montgomery, Alabama, has decided that it would rather incur a fine than continue going on with a city street named after President of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, Jefferson Davis. Kim Chandler of…

Global Diversity

Despite Massive Uptick in Global DEI Initiatives, New Study Reveals Real Change in Corporate Workforces Remains Slow 

Even though DEI as a business imperative continues to grow both in the United States and around the world, a new study has found that many business leaders and executives have merely raised awareness of why diversity, equity and inclusion is important — as opposed to actually making meaningful progress…

Novartis Collaborates With Microsoft To Innovate Medicine Through Data and Artificial Intelligence

Originally published on LinkedIn. Novartis Pharmaceuticals is a DiversityInc Hall of Fame company.   “We are not just discoverers. We actually create molecules that have never been made before.” Says Karin Briner, Head of Global Discovery Chemistry at Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (NIBR). By collaborating with Microsoft and augmenting the expertise of our…

Mastercard Announces Launch of Crescent City Card Program in Partnership With New Orleans and MoCaFi

Originally published at mastercard.com. Mastercard ranked No. 5 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list in 2021.   New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell was joined by executives from Mastercard, Mobility Capital Finance, Inc. (MoCaFi), and Forward Together New Orleans to announce the Crescent City Card Program. The program involves a…

Mastercard on Supporting Inclusive and Sustainable Urban Development by Expanding Its ‘City Possible’ Network

Originally published at mastercard.com. Mastercard ranked No. 5 on The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity list in 2021.   Mastercard has continued to expand its support for addressing urban challenges and inequalities, working with city leaders and partners around the world, through the City Possible™ network and capabilities. The unique solutions…

Rep. Ilhan Omar

Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert Makes Anti-Muslim Comments Against Fellow Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota

Following the horrific example of Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, who posted an animated video depicting the killing of his congressional colleague Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another member of the House of Representatives has made a similarly vile attack on a co-worker based purely on her religious beliefs. James Anderson of the…

Pinterest app

Pinterest Enacting New Company-Wide DEI Initiatives Following Gender and Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Following a lawsuit led by the General Treasurer of Rhode Island, social media company Pinterest has announced that it will be enacting a series of new diversity, equity and inclusion workplace reforms to settle a recent lawsuit against them. Patrick Anderson of The Providence Journal reported that “the reforms are…