The JCPA has supported government and private sector affirmative action for many years, as long as race is one of many factors considered, only individuals judged to be qualified are accepted or rewarded, and quotas are not utilized. As recently as 2000, JCPA concluded a lengthy study on race and ethnicity and reaffirmed this position. Recent developments have changed the affirmative action landscape and warrant JCPA\u2019s attention. <\/p>\n
In June 2003, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving the University of Michigan (U-M) and its affirmative action policies. The first, Gratz v. Bollinger<\/i>, involved two students who had applied for, and been denied admission to, U-M\u2019s undergraduate program. The second case, Grutter v. Bollinger<\/i>, centered on a student who was denied admission to U-M\u2019s law school. The Court upheld the law school admissions program, saying that the state has a \u201ccompelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.\u201d However, the Court struck down U-M\u2019s undergraduate affirmative action program, saying that the university\u2019s point system, \u201cis not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity that respondents claim justifies their program.\u201d <\/p>\n
The result of the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions in Gratz<\/i> and Grutter<\/i> is that the Court validated the use of race as one factor among others in university admissions in principle, although it struck down the specific methodology of U-M\u2019s undergraduate admissions program. However, this does not mean that the battle for affirmative action is over. Indeed, Gratz<\/i> and Grutter<\/i> only refer specifically to higher education, and while the Court ruled that affirmative action programs in education are not per se unconstitutional, they are not mandated.<\/p>\n
In the few months since Gratz <\/i>and Grutter, <\/i>plans are already underway in Michigan to initiate a referendum to ban affirmative action programs. Any effort similar to California\u2019s Propositions 209 or 54, and Oregon\u2019s Proposition 200, would undermine the effectiveness of affirmative action in education, employment, contracts and other areas, and demonstrate the need for vigilance to support affirmative action programs that are consistent with JCPA policy. <\/p>\n
The JCPA believes:<\/b><\/p>\n The community relations field should:<\/b><\/p>\n The JCPA has supported government and private sector affirmative action for many years, as long as race is one of many factors considered, only individuals judged to be qualified are accepted or rewarded, and quotas are not utilized. As recently as 2000, JCPA concluded a lengthy study on race and ethnicity and reaffirmed this position. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-press-release"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n