Myths
and Facts about Affirmative Action
Myth:
Don’t Worry, Ending Affirmative Action Won’t Cause Resegregation
In Grutter v. Bollinger and
Gratz v. Bollinger, the challenges to the law school
and undergraduate affirmative action programs at the University
of Michigan, Ward Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute
(ACRI) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing:
“A ruling on behalf of Ms. Grutter
and Ms. Gratz will not close doors to higher education for African
Americans...”[1]
Facts:
Resegregation in Legal Education
When
affirmative action was banned at the law schools at Berkeley,
UCLA, and the University of Texas in 1997, African American enrollments
plummeted to levels not seen since the 1960s. As this chart indicates,
in 1997-2003 African American enrollments at Berkeley, UCLA and
UT were three-fifths lower than in 1993-1996, when affirmative
action was practiced.[2]
Myth:
Proposition 209 -- Try It, You’ll Like It
Connerly chaired the Yes-on-209 campaign
in California, and led anti-affirmative action ballot efforts
in Washington, Florida, Michigan, and other states. In Grutter
and Gratz, Connerly’s ACRI assured the Supreme Court
that diversity improved under Proposition 209:
“In California, minority enrollment
in the University of California system increased from 18.8 percent
in 1997, the last year in which preferences were used, to 19.1
percent in 2002.”[3]
Facts:
Declining Undergraduate Opportunities at the Univ. of California
Ironically,
ACRI’s statistic is misleading because of Connerly’s success in
getting the UC Regents to vote against affirmative action in July
1995, which had a chilling effect even before the affirmative
action ban was implemented. As the chart indicates, African Americans,
Latinos, and American Indians were 21% of UC freshmen in 1995.[4] However,
in 1998-2003, without affirmative action, the figures ranged from
15.1%-18.3.%, still well below 1995. And that is despite the
fact that California’s public high school graduates include an
increasing proportion of underrepresented minorities (42% in 2003).
[2] William C. Kidder, The Struggle
for Access from Sweatt to Grutter: A History of
African American, Latino, and American Indian Law School Admissions,
1950-2000, 19 Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal 1, 31-35
(2003); UC Office of the President, Statistics on University
of California’s Law Schools (2004); MALDEF, Americans for a
Fair Chance, Equal Justice Society, and SALT, Blend It, Don’t
End It: Affirmative Action and the Texas Ten Percent Plan After
Grutter and Gratz (June 2004), available at http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/MALDEF_Post_Grutter_Report_June_24_2004.pdf.
[3] Brief Amici Curiae, supra note
i, at 28.
[4] UC Office of the President, Application,
Admission and Enrollment of California Resident Freshmen for
Fall 1995 through 2003 (2004), available at http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/flowfrc9503.pdf.
Affirmative action was banned at UC law schools one year earlier
than at the undergraduate level.
[6] Grutter v. Bollinger, 123
S.Ct. 2325, 2342-43 (2003).
[7] See e.g., Brief for the American
Educational Research Ass’n et al. as Amici Curiae (Feb. 15,
2003), available at http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/grutter/;
Diversity Challenged:
Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action (Gary Orfield
& M. Kurlaender eds., 2001); Expert Report of Patricia Gurin,
reprinted at 5 Mich. J. Race & L. 363 (1999); William G. Bowen & Derek Bok, The Shape of the River: Long-Term
Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions
(1998).
[8] 123 S.Ct. at 2339-40.
[9] Richard O. Lempert et al., Michigan’s
Minority Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through Law School,
25 Law & Social Inquiry 395 (2000).
|
Return
to
Research page
EJS
is a national coordinating organization that engages in strategic
research and education, long-term planning and action mobilization.
In doing so, EJS serves as a catalyst and facilitator for new
progressive legal strategies.
Specifically,
EJS:
(1)
Collaboratively identifies specific laws and/or theories that
need to be transformed to serve the ends of social justice;
(2)
Helps to craft long-range strategic plans for transforming those
laws and/or theories;
(3)
Coordinates and facilitates development of cutting-edge legal
theories, social science studies, polling, and implementation
strategies generated by progressive think tanks, scholars and
law students; and
(4)
Coordinates and facilitates dissemination of the research, theories
and strategies for practical use by legal practitioners, advocacy
groups, courts, politicians and the media.
EJS
provides a forum for developing and translating progressive theories
by facilitating interactive workshops, holding conferences and
forums, working with media, and assisting in the dissemination
of articles and other scholarly work.
|
