Almost a decade later in 1986, a school board was challenged for laying off non-minority teachers before minority employees, even when the non-minority teachers had seniority. The case was Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education and the Supreme Court rule against the school board. The court maintained that the “injury suffered by non-minorities affected could not justify the benefits to minorities” (Brunner). On the other hand the Supreme Court ruled in favor of particular strict racial policies in the case of the United States v. Paradise. The Paradise case was rather different than the situation which occurred with the Jackson Board of Education. United States v. Paradise concerned the State of Alabama Department of Public Safety and the fact that the department had systematically discriminated against blacks in hiring and continued to do so even after the federal court had ordered a reform in the department’s hiring practices once before. Finally the court got frustrated and ordered specific racial quotas to correct the situation in Alabama (Brunner).

Many other Supreme Court cases and federal cases have been decided either supporting or arguing against affirmative action. Likewise various legislative actions have been take against affirmative action (for example Proposition 209 enacted in California which outlawed preferential treatment based on race or sex and also when Florida banned race as a factor for college admission just recently in 2000). The most recent cases concerning affirmative action though took place in June of 2003. Two cases arose in Michigan and would become landmark cases concerning affirmative action.
Both of the two were Supreme Court cases brought against the University of Michigan. The first of the two cases, Gratz v. Bollinger was against the University of Michigan’s undergraduate program while the second, Grutter v. Bollinger was against the university’s law school.

In Gratz v. Bollinger the Supreme Court decided that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy had to undergo changes. Michigan’s policy utilized a ‘point’ system (the more points an applicant was awarded the more likely he/she would be admitted into the undergraduate school). The problem with the system is that it applies additional points for minority applicants, which strayed away from the individual consideration that should be given to applicants whom meet the prerequisites and various standards of admission (Brunner).

Contrary to the ruling in the Gratz case in Grutter v. Bollinger the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan’s law school policies were indeed constitutional because the law school did not apply the ‘point’ system. The court held that race can be a factor in admissions because it promotes “a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” (Brunner). In both cases though the Supreme Court made it clear that despite the fact that affirmative action should not longer be considered a means of repaying minorities and females for past oppression it does encourage a “compelling state interest in diversity at all levels of society” (Brunner).

Now that the history of affirmative action has been explained one can start to examine the claims of those who support and fight against affirmative action. First consider the arguments of those who favor affirmative action. Many of the people who support the policy affiliate themselves with liberal or the democratic political party and insist that affirmative action needs to continue because the “playing field is not level yet” (Froomkin). Another claim to back up affirmative action is that even if the playing field is level now that it is still fair to give certain benefits to ethnic minorities and women because of the numerous “years of discrimination that benefited whites and men” (Brunner). The most vigorous claims for affirmative action though concerns education. Many have the belief that affirmative action is no different than when universities actively recruit international students or encourage American students to study abroad (American Association for Affirmative Action). Both are just techniques to have students interact with other people who are different than them which many consider to be the foundation of a liberal education.

On the other side of the affirmative action rainbow is not a pot of gold but rather people who oppose affirmative action. The opposition to affirmative action has increased and the movement argues “that the battle to guarantee equal rights for all citizens has been fought and won-and that favoring members of one group over another simply goes against the American grain” (Froomkin). Affirmative action to many conservative “angry white men” (Brunner) is considered to simply open the doors for employment and education for minorities while such policies closes the very same doors on white American men (which is based on the assumption that one group succeeds only if another fails). Affirmative action is merely a free ride for those who are undeserving of such preferential treatment and when these “angry white men” see that Asians and Jews can succeed without handouts than why can’t blacks, Native Americans, Mexicans and women do the same thing. Conservatives and republicans alike say it time and time again that blacks need to get over the fact that their ancestors were slaves while liberals argue that “slavery was just the beginning of racism in America” (Brunner).

Affirmative Action continued....