AFL-CIO: Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action

June 23, 2003

Civil rights and union leaders applauded the U.S. Supreme Court decision, on a 5-4 vote, upholding the University of Michigan law school’s affirmative action admissions program.

“The decision is a victory for America’s working families because it preserves the important principle that a diverse student body benefits institutions of higher learning and, ultimately, America’s workplaces and our communities,” said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney .

The high court ruled on two cases involving lawsuits filed against the University of Michigan. The suits challenged the university’s affirmative action policies in the undergraduate and law school programs, alleging they discriminate against nonminority applicants on the basis of race. In both programs, the university adopted admissions guidelines that would weigh various factors, including the applicant’s race. The justices upheld the law school program entirely. “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the law school case, Grutter v. Bollinger .

“The court listened to the views of America’s foremost military and corporate leaders and recognized that America’s national security and American businesses benefit by recruiting men and women from diverse races, ethnicities and backgrounds,” said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights ,a national coalition of more than 180 civil rights organizations, including the AFL-CIO and several affiliated unions.

In the companion case of Gratz v. Bollinger , t he court ruled the undergraduate admissions program, which uses a system that assigns points for several factors, including race, is unconstitutional. In the court majority’s view, the use of race in the undergraduate admission program was not tailored narrowly enough to survive strict scrutiny because the program assigned automatic credit for race, instead of providing for “individualized consideration” of the applicants’ characteristics. However, “i n the end, that will not be a serious impediment to the effective implementation of a race-sensitive program to achieve diversity,” Henderson said.

Even if the court had struck down Michigan’s programs, it would not have ended the practice of affirmative action. The court’s ruling only applies to affirmative action in higher education admissions and does not affect affirmative action plans in private businesses and required by previous presidential orders in government contracting.

The AFL-CIO filed an amicus brief —a brief filed by an organization not a party to the suit—with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plans. The federation argued that the university presented compelling evidence of the educational benefits of the diverse student body created by the challenged admissions policies, most importantly the reduction in biases and prejudices that students will carry with them into America's workplaces, thereby reducing employment discrimination.

The Bush administration opposed the University of Michigan plans before the high court, a move that Sweeney called “outrageous and short-sighted.” The White House supports so-called percent plans, which dictate a certain percentage of every graduating class of every high school in the state be admitted to a state school, as they are in California, Florida and Texas. But a study by the Harvard University Civil Rights Project shows percent plans are not effective replacements for traditional affirmative action.

“President Bush’s decision to take a stand that would push America backwards, while shocking, is just the latest blow against the advancements of women, people of color, workers and the poor,” Sweeney said. “He has nominated judges and other top leaders with abysmal civil and human rights records, rolled back workers’ safety protections and other workplace rights and cut programs that help poor families.”

Many usual allies of the administration—large corporations such as General Motors and Coca-Cola, the U.S Chamber of Commerce and several military leaders such as retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf—publicly supported the Michigan program or filed briefs with the court.

Hundreds of student and union activists from across the nation rallied in Washington, D.C., in support of affirmative action in the nation’s colleges and universities on March 31, t he day before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Michigan cases.

Lower federal courts had upheld both affirmative action plans. A U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that Michigan’s system of treating minority status as one of many factors was constitutional. Those cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for the June 23 decisions.

Other recent attacks on affirmative action have taken place in California, where Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions as well as public employment and contracting. In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush (R) issued an executive order eliminating the use of race and gender in college admissions as well as in government employment and contracting.