RACE-CONSCIOUS PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION
EDITED BY ARIE WRIGHT, KATHERINE REDETZKE, JULIA STURGES, MELL CHHOY,
AND SELA CARRINGTON
I. INTRODUCTION.......................................... 830
II. DEVELOPMENTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL INTEGRATION: THE ROAD FROM
MANDATORY TO VOLUNTARY ............................... 832
A. THE PROMISE OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION ............. 832
B. BROWN’S PROGENY: EFFORTS TO MANDATE INTEGRATION. . . . . . . . 833
III. VOLUNTARY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . 835
A. EQUAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY .......... 837
a. Setting a Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837
b. Upholding and Defining Diversity as a Compelling
Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839
B. GRAPPLING WITH BAKKE ............................... 840
1. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits Challenge the
Constitutionality of Diversity as a Compelling Interest . . . 840
2. The Ninth Circuit Upholds Diversity as a Compelling
Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
C. THE SUPREME COURT STEPS IN: GRATZ, GRUTTER, FISHER, AND
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841
1. Gratz v. Bollinger: Race in a Point System Fails the
Narrow Tailoring Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842
2. Grutter v. Bollinger: Satisfying the Strict Scrutiny
Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
a. Quotas and the Critical Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843
b. Individualized Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844
c. Durational Limitations on Race-Conscious
Admissions Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
3. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Refining the Strict
Scrutiny Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845
4. Fisher II: Upholding the Race-Conscious Admissions
Program under the Equal Protection Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
5. Students For Fair Admissions: Dismantling Race-
Conscious Programs As Violating the Equal Protection
Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847
a. Lack of Judicially Reviewable & Measurable
Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 848
b. Negative Employment of Race & Stereotyping . . . . . 849
c. Lack of Meaningful Termination Point . . . . . . . . . . . 850
829
d. Conclusion & “Loophole” For Colleges and
Universities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851
6. The Future of Affirmative Action Litigation ............ 854
D. STATE EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION .......... 855
E. THE LEGALITY OF RACE-CONSCIOUS SUPPLEMENTAL PROGRAMS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION .................................. 857
IV. VOLUNTARY DESEGREGATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES IN
PUBLIC SECONDARY EDUCATION ............................. 858
A. A FIRST ATTEMPT AT VOLUNTARY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION . . . . . 860
B. PRE-GRUTTER APPLICATION OF RACE-CONSCIOUS STUDENT
ASSIGNMENT PLANS IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS .......... 861
C. POST-GRUTTER PLANS USING RACE AS A FACTOR IN STUDENT
ASSIGNMENT PLANS IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS .......... 863
1. The First Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863
2. The Ninth and Sixth Circuits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864
D. PRIVATE SCHOOLS’ VOLUNTARY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN RESPONSE
TO EXTERNAL IMBALANCE ............................. 866
V. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION VS. WORKPLACE
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLANS OR DIVERSITY INITIATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 867
A. PUBLIC SECTOR: STRICT SCRUTINY ....................... 868
B. PRIVATE SECTOR: TITLE VII ............................ 868
VI. CONCLUSION .......................................... 869
I. INTRODUCTION
According to a job posting released by the Department of Justice, the Civil
Rights Division plans to review and possibly sue universities based on their af-
firmative action admissions policies.
1
Sari Horwitz & Robert Costa, Session’s Move to Take on Affirmative Action Energizes Trump’s
Base, WASH. POST (Aug. 2, 2017), https://perma.cc/TQ9N-DQME.
While former Attorney General Jeff
Sessions adopted a hardline approach for eliminating affirmative action, former
Secretary of Education Betsy Devos’ approach was to avoid taking a stance and
to defer to the Justice Department.
2
Education Secretary Betsy Devos Discusses U.S. Educational Issues, FORTUNE (Aug. 12, 2017),
https://perma.cc/K3WX-DFA3.
The Biden administration, by contrast, has
taken a pro-diversity stance following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students
for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held that admissions offices around the
country can no longer consider race when admitting candidates to their univer-
sity.
3
Collin Binkley, Biden Administration Urges Colleges to Pursue Racial Diversity Without
Affirmative Action, ASSOC. PRESS (Aug. 14, 2023), https://perma.cc/9H9F-M2WV.
In light of SCOTUS’ dismantling of affirmative action, this article discusses
five dimensions of race-conscious programs. Part I explores the historical under-
pinnings of Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, beginning with Plessy v.
1.
2.
3.
830 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW [Vol. 25:829
Ferguson and the “separate but equal” doctrine. Part II analyzes Court decisions
involving voluntary race-conscious admissions policies in public higher educa-
tion, including supplemental programs and scholarships, and provides a brief
overview of state efforts to regulate or eliminate these policies. Part III evaluates
the progression of voluntary affirmative action policies in secondary education.
Part IV examines the implications of Court decisions surrounding race-conscious
programs in education on affirmative action efforts in the workplace.
In evaluating affirmative action policies, courts generally distinguish between
public and private contexts. In public institutions of higher and secondary educa-
tion and public-sector employers, race-conscious admissions or hiring policies
are permissible but subject to the strict scrutiny imposed by the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this context, strict scrutiny requires a
showing that (1) diversity is a compelling interest and (2) the policy or program
is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
4
To satisfy the narrow tailoring require-
ment, a race-conscious admission or hiring policy must consider race as only one
factor among many, allow all applicants to compete against each other in one
pool, and involve individualized assessments of each candidate.
5
In private institutions of secondary education and private sector employers,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies. Though there is no definitive Supreme
Court ruling in this area, courts generally apply a three-pronged test: (1) whether
a prima facie showing of discriminate impact can be proven; (2) a whether there
is a substantial and legitimate justification for the practice resulting in discrimi-
nate impact; and (3) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative that would
also achieve the legitimate objective.
6
Generally speaking, broader “diversity policies” tend to be upheld since they
are established merely for the benefit of the institution, not to remedy some spe-
cific imbalance. Diversity is a nebulous term that could feasibly cover almost any
type of classification or categorization.
7
4. See, e.g., Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
5. Id.
6. See, e.g., New York Urban League v. New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 (1995).
7. Though diversity initiatives are often confused with affirmative action, the two are distinct
concepts. First, while affirmative action is remedial in nature, designed to rectify past harm, a diversity
program focuses on the benefits a diverse workforce may bring to the workplace. Second, affirmative
action is limited to race or gender issues; in contrast, a diversity initiative may include all group
identities due to the broad, unclear definition of the term “diversity.” Third, diversity initiatives purport
to expand the pool of candidates. In other words, diversity initiatives cannot reversely discriminate
against a certain class because all candidates with a broad array of diverse features will be considered.
As discussed previously, public sector employers’ voluntary affirmative action plans are generally
upheld when the employers establish the plan to meet a remedial purpose. Diversity initiatives should
not be examined under Title VII’s three-pronged test if employers promote diversity in a workplace to
obtain business benefits rather than to remedy any internal imbalance.
2024] RACE-CONSCIOUS PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION 831
