Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action
Over the past forty years, affirmative action advocates have participated in a defensive campaign where they have admitted that affirmative action is a form of justified discrimination. This Article finds this a dangerous strategy because it allows for the practice of misguided beliefs about race an...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Washington and Lee law review 2024-01, Vol.80 (5), p.1873-1935 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1935 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1873 |
container_title | Washington and Lee law review |
container_volume | 80 |
creator | Lyke, Sheldon Bernard |
description | Over the past forty years, affirmative action advocates have participated in a defensive campaign where they have admitted that affirmative action is a form of justified discrimination. This Article finds this a dangerous strategy because it allows for the practice of misguided beliefs about race and remedies for racism. When schools fail to fight the pernicious perception that affirmative action is a racial preference, they allow the bulk of society to participate in the belief that there are no other remedial justifications for affirmative action-like remedying an institution's history of discrimination, or curing a school's present and ongoing discrimination by accounting for bias in admissions measures like grades, standardized testing, and letters of recommendation which are the products of racial bias. Given this fact, affirmative action is neither a racial preference nor a form of "benign" racial discrimination. Instead, affirmative action acts as a corrective function. This Article argues that the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ("SFFA v. Harvard") was not solely the work of conservatives. Advocates of affirmative action implemented an over forty-year, weak affirmative defense strategy that centered diversity and treated race conscious remedies as a form of preferential treatment. This Article discusses how portions of the SFFA decision that are critical of the diversity rationale align with principles of racial equality. Additionally, this Article discusses equality, the critiques of the diversity rationale, and calls for advocates of affirmative action to abandon diversity in the wake of SFFA. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2957494693</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2957494693</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_29574946933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjUsLwjAQhIMoWB__IeC5EJs0td6CDzxL7xJ0o6m10Wxa8N9bxYs3T8PsfLPTI9E8F0ksZbrok4gxwWMmJB-SEWLJGEsTnkXErcFAjUDVWdsaAw0XoGvtr1T5gEtavK1twaMNT7rXwbpaV0B1ffqgW20rOFFljPW3Lm07_PvRmZ-zOr67EzIwukKYfnVMZttNsdrFd-8eDWA4lK7x3QQekjzNRC5kzvl_1AvtgEqj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2957494693</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action</title><source>HeinOnline</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</creator><creatorcontrib>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</creatorcontrib><description>Over the past forty years, affirmative action advocates have participated in a defensive campaign where they have admitted that affirmative action is a form of justified discrimination. This Article finds this a dangerous strategy because it allows for the practice of misguided beliefs about race and remedies for racism. When schools fail to fight the pernicious perception that affirmative action is a racial preference, they allow the bulk of society to participate in the belief that there are no other remedial justifications for affirmative action-like remedying an institution's history of discrimination, or curing a school's present and ongoing discrimination by accounting for bias in admissions measures like grades, standardized testing, and letters of recommendation which are the products of racial bias. Given this fact, affirmative action is neither a racial preference nor a form of "benign" racial discrimination. Instead, affirmative action acts as a corrective function. This Article argues that the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ("SFFA v. Harvard") was not solely the work of conservatives. Advocates of affirmative action implemented an over forty-year, weak affirmative defense strategy that centered diversity and treated race conscious remedies as a form of preferential treatment. This Article discusses how portions of the SFFA decision that are critical of the diversity rationale align with principles of racial equality. Additionally, this Article discusses equality, the critiques of the diversity rationale, and calls for advocates of affirmative action to abandon diversity in the wake of SFFA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-0463</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-6658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Lexington: Washington & Lee University, School of Law</publisher><subject>Affirmative action ; Diversity equity & inclusion ; Racial discrimination ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Washington and Lee law review, 2024-01, Vol.80 (5), p.1873-1935</ispartof><rights>Copyright Washington & Lee University, School of Law 2024</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</creatorcontrib><title>Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action</title><title>Washington and Lee law review</title><description>Over the past forty years, affirmative action advocates have participated in a defensive campaign where they have admitted that affirmative action is a form of justified discrimination. This Article finds this a dangerous strategy because it allows for the practice of misguided beliefs about race and remedies for racism. When schools fail to fight the pernicious perception that affirmative action is a racial preference, they allow the bulk of society to participate in the belief that there are no other remedial justifications for affirmative action-like remedying an institution's history of discrimination, or curing a school's present and ongoing discrimination by accounting for bias in admissions measures like grades, standardized testing, and letters of recommendation which are the products of racial bias. Given this fact, affirmative action is neither a racial preference nor a form of "benign" racial discrimination. Instead, affirmative action acts as a corrective function. This Article argues that the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ("SFFA v. Harvard") was not solely the work of conservatives. Advocates of affirmative action implemented an over forty-year, weak affirmative defense strategy that centered diversity and treated race conscious remedies as a form of preferential treatment. This Article discusses how portions of the SFFA decision that are critical of the diversity rationale align with principles of racial equality. Additionally, this Article discusses equality, the critiques of the diversity rationale, and calls for advocates of affirmative action to abandon diversity in the wake of SFFA.</description><subject>Affirmative action</subject><subject>Diversity equity & inclusion</subject><subject>Racial discrimination</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0043-0463</issn><issn>1942-6658</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjUsLwjAQhIMoWB__IeC5EJs0td6CDzxL7xJ0o6m10Wxa8N9bxYs3T8PsfLPTI9E8F0ksZbrok4gxwWMmJB-SEWLJGEsTnkXErcFAjUDVWdsaAw0XoGvtr1T5gEtavK1twaMNT7rXwbpaV0B1ffqgW20rOFFljPW3Lm07_PvRmZ-zOr67EzIwukKYfnVMZttNsdrFd-8eDWA4lK7x3QQekjzNRC5kzvl_1AvtgEqj</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</creator><general>Washington & Lee University, School of Law</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X1</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8A9</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ANIOZ</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRAZJ</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action</title><author>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_29574946933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Affirmative action</topic><topic>Diversity equity & inclusion</topic><topic>Racial discrimination</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Accounting & Tax Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Accounting, Tax & Banking Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lyke, Sheldon Bernard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action</atitle><jtitle>Washington and Lee law review</jtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1873</spage><epage>1935</epage><pages>1873-1935</pages><issn>0043-0463</issn><eissn>1942-6658</eissn><abstract>Over the past forty years, affirmative action advocates have participated in a defensive campaign where they have admitted that affirmative action is a form of justified discrimination. This Article finds this a dangerous strategy because it allows for the practice of misguided beliefs about race and remedies for racism. When schools fail to fight the pernicious perception that affirmative action is a racial preference, they allow the bulk of society to participate in the belief that there are no other remedial justifications for affirmative action-like remedying an institution's history of discrimination, or curing a school's present and ongoing discrimination by accounting for bias in admissions measures like grades, standardized testing, and letters of recommendation which are the products of racial bias. Given this fact, affirmative action is neither a racial preference nor a form of "benign" racial discrimination. Instead, affirmative action acts as a corrective function. This Article argues that the Supreme Court's dismantling of affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ("SFFA v. Harvard") was not solely the work of conservatives. Advocates of affirmative action implemented an over forty-year, weak affirmative defense strategy that centered diversity and treated race conscious remedies as a form of preferential treatment. This Article discusses how portions of the SFFA decision that are critical of the diversity rationale align with principles of racial equality. Additionally, this Article discusses equality, the critiques of the diversity rationale, and calls for advocates of affirmative action to abandon diversity in the wake of SFFA.</abstract><cop>Lexington</cop><pub>Washington & Lee University, School of Law</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-0463 |
ispartof | Washington and Lee law review, 2024-01, Vol.80 (5), p.1873-1935 |
issn | 0043-0463 1942-6658 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2957494693 |
source | HeinOnline; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Affirmative action Diversity equity & inclusion Racial discrimination Supreme Court decisions |
title | Defense Against the Dark Arts: The Diversity Rationale and the Failed Affirmative Defense of Affirmative Action |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T11%3A15%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Defense%20Against%20the%20Dark%20Arts:%20The%20Diversity%20Rationale%20and%20the%20Failed%20Affirmative%20Defense%20of%20Affirmative%20Action&rft.jtitle=Washington%20and%20Lee%20law%20review&rft.au=Lyke,%20Sheldon%20Bernard&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1873&rft.epage=1935&rft.pages=1873-1935&rft.issn=0043-0463&rft.eissn=1942-6658&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2957494693%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2957494693&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |