After 2016’s Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action (please see link below), do you think that the court came to the appropriate decision, and why?
Solution
Introduction/Background
Affirmative Action was used, for the first time in the United States, in an executive order, which was signed by President John. F Kennedy, on 6 March of the year 1961. The objective of this executive order No. 10925, was to address racism at the firm level. It was suggested to the government contractors that they should not take into account race, creed or color when employing an individual. They must take affirmative action to ensure that 1) applicants are employed fairly and justly (no racial or color discrimination) and 2) during employment, they are not mistreated because of their color, creed, faith or race. The intention or the objective, of this executive order, was to establish and maintain fairness and transparency at different levels, in a government institution (Liptak).
This executive order was further expanded by Lyndon Johnson, which added the terms religion and gender to it. The entire exercise, of issuing such affirmative orders, was to address segregation and discrimination in the United States. However, we find that these affirmative orders, which were executive orders, became controversial as they produced controversial outcomes. For instance, the race-conscious aspect of these executive orders allowed many universities and colleges to devise such policy that encouraged diversity. It means that some universities and colleges made sure that their student body was diverse and for that, they preferred students of a particular race. According to some, this undermined merit at universities (Liptak).
The race-conscious admission programs, which were one of the consequences of these executive orders, were challenged in the Supreme Court. However, in June of, 2016, the Supreme Court of United States rejected the challenge to race-conscious admission program at the University of Texas at Austin. The decision, which was a 4-3 decision, produced more controversies than resolving them. For instance, it was explained in a 4-3 decision, that not all the race-conscious programs, which are the result of executive orders about affirmative action, by the constitution. From this verdict, it seems that the issue still exists and Supreme Court, of the United States, failed to address in this landmark judgment (Liptak).
Did Court come to an Appropriate Decision?
Court decisions are not just subject to interest for a lawyer and judicial communities, but also for ordinary people. Also, the court decisions or verdicts must be comprehensive, and the decisions must address and resolve the issues. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to examine the constitutional validity of a particular race-conscious program and such programs in general. The verdict was that race-conscious program, which university devised to increase diversity in the student body, was valid; however, other programs could be un-constitutional in the structure (Liptak).
The Issue with the Verdict
In the first section, the origin, and objectives of Affirmative Orders, it is extremely plain that objective or intention of these executive orders was to address racism and segregation in society. Another objective was to promote meritocracy in the United States. The government and private institutions must be color-blind and examine each case on merit. However, these race-conscious programs undermine merit or meritocracy as these programs emphasize on diversity rather than merit. We learn that these programs offer quotas to different racial groups, which is extremely controversial. These programs violate, in my opinion, the spirit of the constitution and therefore, these programs hold no constitutional validity, which is essential for any program to run. Any program, which explicitly or implicitly violates clauses of the constitution or violates its spirit, must be dismantled or declared void (Liptak).
Conclusion
In the end, it can be concluded that the judgment, of the Supreme Court, is not very explicit and it does not address the primary question, which was that whether such diversity programs are constitutionally valid or not. In my opinion, the verdict is highly controversial, and it will not end the debate and controversy, about such race-conscious programs.
Work Cited
Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas.” New York Times. New York Times, 23 June 2016. Web. 6 February 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-university-of-texas.html.
+447462439809