Affirmative Action in American University Admissions — Analysis of the Current Policy and Proposals —
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Affirmative action as the American universities’ admissions policy began as a means to redress racial discrimination for three main reasons. First is to address the disadvantages against racial minority students in standardized tests. Second reason is that affirmative action can provide blacks with just compensation for the past racial discriminations. Thirdly, affirmative action is designed to promote educational diversity through diverse student body. The test for determining constitutionality of university admission policy is a strict scrutiny standard because racial classification is always subject to a strict scrutiny along with national origin and alienage. So a university’s affirmative action program can pass this test if the university can prove that there is a compelling state interest in acquiring racial diversity; that a specific affirmative action program as a means to achieve diversity is narrowly tailored to satisfy the compelling interest; and that there is no workable race-neutral alternatives. The series of the Supreme Court cases starting from Bakke through Grutter and Fisher have established that universities’ affirmative action programs can pass the constitutional muster because the educational diversity is recognized as a compelling interest and the ‘plus factor’ method in holistic review is recognized as being narrowly tailored to achieve racial diversity. Although affirmative action in college admission seems to be still necessary, the current standard that allows universities to consider the applicant’s race as a ‘plus factor’ in holistic review appears to be standing on constitutionally shaky ground because of the risk of giving too much discretion to admission officials who can abuse this system in covert and hidden manner at the unfair disadvantage to Asian applicants. Instead of plus factor system, it is better to allow the universities to award points to racial minority applicants at a reasonable level that would not be too dispositive but would have meaningful impact in admission decisions. The approach combining the modified point system with the revised legacy and donor admissions and the increased need-blind policy would help the universities in achieving the goal of racial and educational diversity.
Abstract
Affirmative action as the American universities’ admissions policy began as a means to redress racial discrimination for three main reasons. First is to address the disadvantages against racial minority students in standardized tests. Second reason is that affirmative action can provide blacks with just compensation for the past racial discriminations. Thirdly, affirmative action is designed to promote educational diversity through diverse student body. The test for determining constitutionality of university admission policy is a strict scrutiny standard because racial classification is always subject to a strict scrutiny along with national origin and alienage. So a university’s affirmative action program can pass this test if the university can prove that there is a compelling state interest in acquiring racial diversity; that a specific affirmative action program as a means to achieve diversity is narrowly tailored to satisfy the compelling interest; and that there is no workable race-neutral alternatives. The series of the Supreme Court cases starting from Bakke through Grutter and Fisher have established that universities’ affirmative action programs can pass the constitutional muster because the educational diversity is recognized as a compelling interest and the ‘plus factor’ method in holistic review is recognized as being narrowly tailored to achieve racial diversity. Although affirmative action in college admission seems to be still necessary, the current standard that allows universities to consider the applicant’s race as a ‘plus factor’ in holistic review appears to be standing on constitutionally shaky ground because of the risk of giving too much discretion to admission officials who can abuse this system in covert and hidden manner at the unfair disadvantage to Asian applicants. Instead of plus factor system, it is better to allow the universities to award points to racial minority applicants at a reasonable level that would not be too dispositive but would have meaningful impact in admission decisions. The approach combining the modified point system with the revised legacy and donor admissions and the increased need-blind policy would help the universities in achieving the goal of racial and educational diversity.
참고문헌 (46)
- Claire Sweetman, "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard: The Fate of Affirmative Action in Higher Education", Denv. L. Rev. Forum, 97, pp.100~ (2019)
- Cynthia Chiu, "Justice or Just Us?: SFFA v. Harvard and Asian Americans in Affirmative Action", S. Cal. L. Rev, 92, pp.441~ (2019)
- Gerald Gunther, "Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection", Harv. L. Rev, 86, pp.1~ (1972)
- Goodwin Liu, "The Causation Fallacy: Bakke and the Basic Arithmetic of Selective Admissions", Mich. L. Rev, 100, pp.1045~ (2002)
- Ian Ayres, "Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask: Narrow Tailoring After Grutter and Gratz", Tex. L. Rev, 85, pp.517~ (2007)
- Jerry Kang, "Negative Action Against Asian Americans: The Internal Instability of Dworkin's Defense of Affirmative Action", Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev, 31, pp.1~ (1996)
- Jonathan P, "Feingold, SFFA v. Harvard: How Affirmative Action Myths Mask White Bonus", Cal. L. Rev, 107, pp.707~
- Kimberly West-Faulcon, "Obscuring Asian Penalty with Illusions of Black Bonus", UCLA L. Rev. Disc, 64, pp.590~ (2017)
- Marcia G. Synnott, "The Evolving Diversity Rationale in University Admissions: From Regents v. Bakke to the University of Michigan Cases", Cornell L. Rev, 90, pp.463~ (2005)
- Pat K. Chew, "“Asian Americans: The ”Reticent“ Minority and Their Paradoxes", WM. & Mary L. Rev, 36, pp.1~ (1994)
- 공영호, "A Study on Affirmative Action and Positive Action as Countermeasures to Employment Discrimination in the U.S. and the E.U.", 노동법논총, 21, pp.229~262 (2011), 한국비교노동법학회
- "College Students are More Diverse Than Ever" (2019)[URL]
- "Does Harvard Admissions Discriminate? The Lawsuit on Affirmative Action, Explained" (2018)[URL]
- "Harvard Won a Key Affirmative Action Battle, But the War’s Not Over" (2019)[URL]
- "Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306" (2003)[URL]
- C. Vann Woodward, "The Strange Career of Jim Crow", ~ (1957)
- "Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 601, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d", ~
- David Brooks, "How Racist is America?", ~ (2021)
- Eric J. Segall, "Supreme Myths, Why the Supreme Court is Not a Court and Its Justices are Not Judges" (2012), Praeger
- Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies" (2011), Wotters Kluwer
- Erwin Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law" (2013), Wolters Kluwer
- Jacques Steinberg, "3 Look to College Suit to Show Their Merits", N.Y. Times, ~ (2003)
- Kinley Larntz, "Supplemental Expert Report of Kinley Larntz, Gratz v. Bollinger, 122F.Supp.2d 811 (No. 97-CV-75231-DT)", ~
- "Acceptance Letters Go Out to Class of 2007" (2004)[URL]
- "Harvard Affirmative Action Case Pits Asian Americans Against Each Other--and Everyone Else" (2019)[URL]
- Michael J. Sandel, "Justice, What’s the Right Thing to do?" (2009), Farra, Straus and Giroux
- Michael J. Sandel, "The Tyranny of Merit" (2020), Farra, Straus and Giroux
- "Bush, Remarks on the Michigan Affirmative Action Case" (2003)[URL]
- Ron Unz, "The Myth of American Meritocracy", Am. Conservative, ~ (2012)
- "Affirmation Action on Decline"[URL]
- William G. Bowen, "The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions", ~ (1998)
- "U.S. Const. Amend. 14", ~
- "Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190", ~ (1976)
- "Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297", ~ (2013)
- "Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198", ~ (2016)
- "Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 275", ~ (2003)
- "Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 343", ~ (2003)
- "Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d. 932", ~ (1996)
- "Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214", ~ (1944)
- "Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429", ~ (1984)
- "Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1", ~ (1988)
- "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265", ~ (1978)
- "Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469", ~ (1989)
- "Romer v. Evan, 517 U.S. 620", ~ (1996)
- "Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.(SFFA) v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 397 F.Supp.3d 126(D. Mass. 2019); 980 F.3d 157", ~ (2020)
- "Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Education, 476 U.S. 267", ~ (1986)