Terry Eastland
Justices also said affirmative action must end
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | The big headline in the Michigan affirmative action cases is that the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, sustained the use of race in admissions policies. Less publicized is the fact that the court also held, near the end of its ruling in the law school case, that such policies "must be limited in time." If you ask who is to make sure the policies are "limited in time," the court doesn't answer that. But once you consider the way federal law enforcement works, it is apparent the administration could play a vital role in bringing preferences to an end.
Justice O'Connor began the passage by observing that "a core purpose" of the 14th Amendment was to do away with "all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race." She said the admissions policy she and her colleagues had just upheld — and, thus, all policies like it — would be at odds with the 14th Amendment if they were to continue forever. Such policies, therefore, "must be limited in time," meaning they must come to an actual "termination point."
Justice O'Connor set forth how her clumsily named "durational requirement" could be met. She suggested "sunset provisions in race-conscious admissions policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve student body diversity." What you won't find in that passage is the enforcement invitation it fairly extends to the Education Department. The department's Office for Civil Rights has authority to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under Title VI, colleges that receive federal funds can't discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.
The office routinely has enforced Title VI in terms of what the court says about the 14th Amendment. When the court first addressed the use of race in admissions in the Bakke case, the office conformed its Title VI enforcement to the dictates of the new decision. Now that the court has spelled out its "durational requirement," is there any reason the office should fail to implement it?
The Office for Civil Rights has the authority to insist on putting sunset provisions in the admissions policies and on conducting periodic reviews to determine whether preferences are "still necessary" to achieve diversity. Unfortunately, the court didn't spell out the criteria for answering that question. But there can be no question that schools using preferences are obligated to try "the most promising" race-neutral alternatives now available. They can't simply continue as they have. Presumably, if race-neutral alternatives produce some, if not the same, diversity, the "need" for preferences will diminish.
In March, the office published "Race-Neutral Alternatives in Postsecondary Education: Innovative Approaches to Diversity." The document reported on the two main alternatives now in use - those that operate at the point of admission (like the X-percent plans in Texas and Florida) and those that aim to develop students academically (like the expansion of advanced placement courses to underserved high schools in the same two states).
The office is as prepared as any government agency could be to encourage the move to race neutrality that the court has envisioned. All that is left is for it to assert itself and issue new guidance on Title VI.
The Education Department isn't obliged to be deferential to higher education, as the court was in the law school case. "We take the law school at its word," wrote Justice O'Connor, "that it would 'like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula' and will terminate its race-conscious admissions program as soon as practicable." The department won't have to take anyone's word but will be duty-bound to prod and push toward race neutrality.
If the Education Department doesn't assert itself - if timid White House
officials hold it back — preferences in admissions aren't likely to encounter
much resistance, save from litigants whose cases will take years to
resolve. The administration has an opportunity to govern in behalf of right
principle — and in furtherance of the court's judgment.
Appreciate this writer's work? Why not sign-up for JWR's daily update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less