20.6.5 Successes and Failures of Equality Measures: Affirmative Action and Immigration Reform

Voting Rights

Legislative Efforts to Increase Rights

• 15th Amendment: Ratified in 1870, the 15th Amendment was a landmark constitutional change that extended the right to vote to African American men. It declared that no state could deny the vote based on race. Despite this, Jim Crow laws undermined its effectiveness by enforcing racial segregation and disenfranchising many African Americans.
• Voting Rights Act of 1965: This Act addressed barriers to voting by removing Jim Crow laws and other discriminatory practices. Its impact was profound, with African American voter registration in Mississippi rising from 6.7% to 59.8%.

Political Efforts to Increase African American Turnout

• Obama's Presidency: The election of Barack Obama, the first African American presidential nominee, led to a significant increase in African American voter participation, with turnout rising to 65% in 2008 from 60% just four years earlier.
• 2020 Election: African American turnout increased to 62%. Notably, Stacey Abrams' work in Georgia was instrumental. Her organization registered 800,000 new voters, contributing significantly to Joe Biden's narrow victory in Georgia.

Impact of Shelby County v. Holder

• In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated the formula used to identify areas with histories of discrimination (Section 4B) due to outdated data. This ruling allowed Republican-led states to introduce racially discriminatory changes to voting laws, such as strict photo ID laws and disenfranchising those with criminal convictions. For example, in Iowa, African Americans are 9.3 times more likely to be incarcerated, making them disproportionately affected by such laws.

2020 Election Allegations of Voter Suppression

• Widespread allegations of voter suppression in the 2020 election targeted African American voters, with issues such as long voting lines, strict voter ID laws, and limited drop-off locations in states like Georgia and Texas disproportionately affecting African American communities.

Voter Caging

• Voter caging disproportionately affects poorer individuals, who are more likely to move frequently and not update their voting status. This practice impacts African and Hispanic Americans more significantly, further disenfranchising minority groups.

Representation

Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Congress

• The 118th Congress is the most racially and ethnically diverse in US history, with a quarter of its members identifying as something other than non-Hispanic white. However, this still underrepresents the 40% of the population that is non-white. Notably, 80% of minority members are Democrats.

Diversity in the US Government

• Barack Obama remains the only non-white President, and Kamala Harris is the only non-white Vice President. Joe Biden's initial cabinet was the most diverse in US history, with 55% of its members being non-white. His cabinet included the first Native American Secretary of the Interior (Deb Haaland), the first Hispanic Secretary of Homeland Security, and the first African American Secretary of Defense (Lloyd Austin).

State Governors

• As of 2023, there are only three non-white state governors. Additionally, every state legislature under-represents non-white populations. For instance, in Oregon, the non-white population is 24%, but only 1% of the state legislature is non-white.

Efforts to Improve Representation

• Majority-Minority Districts: These districts are redrawn so that the majority of voters are from racial minorities. In 2024, majority-minority districts make up 31% of the nation's House districts.
• Campaigning and Candidate Selection: Organizations like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and various caucuses such as the Congressional Black Caucus work on candidate recruitment, campaign support, and policy formulation to improve non-white representation in Congress. Grassroots committees also promote candidates from diverse backgrounds.

Affirmative Action

Introduction and Purpose

• Affirmative action is a policy designed to address historical injustices and discrimination faced by minority groups. Introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as an executive order to ensure equal employment opportunities, it was expanded by President Johnson to include education.

Affirmative Action in Employment

• The US federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines encourage federal agencies to actively seek and hire qualified candidates from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Affirmative Action in Education

• Supreme Court Rulings:
  • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy was constitutional because it considered the racial profile of applicants in an individualized manner.
  • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy was unconstitutional because it was too mechanistic, awarding automatic points to black and Hispanic applicants.
  • Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The Court upheld the University of Texas's affirmative action policy, ruling that the use of race must be subject to strict scrutiny. The decision was reheard in 2014 and again favored the university.
  • Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): The Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions was unconstitutional. This decision was based on arguments that Harvard's admission process discriminated against Asian Americans.

Debate on Affirmative Action

• Justice Clarence Thomas: Opposes affirmative action, arguing that it is discriminatory and discredits the achievements of minority individuals while disadvantaging others.
• Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Supports affirmative action, citing her own success as a product of such policies.

Arguments For and Against

• Need for Affirmative Action: Despite progress, significant disparities remain. For instance, 27% of all Native Americans live in poverty, and Native women are 10 times more likely to be murdered. Many Native Americans face challenges exercising their right to vote due to logistical issues.
• Criticism of Affirmative Action: Critics argue that it disadvantages Asian Americans, as evidenced by the higher SAT scores required for Asian Americans to be accepted into elite institutions compared to other minority groups.

Supreme Court's Recent Ruling (2023)

• In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs at the University of North Carolina and Harvard, ruling that these programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and were unlawful. This decision was supported by conservatives arguing for a colorblind approach, while liberals condemned it as a setback in addressing historical racial injustices.

Has Affirmative Action Been Positive for the USA?

Yes:

Yes	Explanation
Reverses Discrimination:	It has helped reverse decades of discrimination and righted numerous wrongs. Previously disadvantaged groups are now advantaged.
Promotes Diversity:	Programs lead to greater community diversity that would not have been achieved by maintaining the status quo.
Opens Opportunities:	It opens up areas of education and employment that some minority groups might otherwise not have considered.
Improves Education Environment:	A diverse student body creates a better learning environment and promotes ethnic and racial tolerance.
Effective Government Tool:	It is a meaningful and effective means for delivering the promise of equal opportunity.
Proven Success:	It works. For example, between 1960 and 1995, the percentage of black people aged 25-29 who graduated from university rose from 5% to 15%.

No:

Argument	Explanation and Examples
Reverse Discrimination	Critics argue that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination by favoring underrepresented minorities at the expense of other groups, particularly white and Asian Americans. For example, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), it was ruled that Harvard's policies unfairly disadvantaged Asian American applicants by imposing higher standards, illustrating how race-conscious admissions can harm some minority groups.
Meritocracy Undermined	Affirmative action is seen by some as undermining the principle of meritocracy, where individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities rather than their race or ethnicity. Critics argue that focusing on racial diversity may lead to less qualified candidates being selected over more qualified individuals, damaging the fairness of hiring or admissions processes.
Stigmatization of Beneficiaries	One argument is that affirmative action can stigmatize those it aims to help by suggesting that their success is due to their race rather than their merit. For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued that affirmative action casts doubt on the achievements of minority individuals, leading others to assume their success is due to preferential treatment rather than competence.
Ineffectiveness in Addressing Root Causes	Some critics believe affirmative action is a superficial solution that fails to address the root causes of inequality, such as poor educational opportunities or socio-economic disparities. Instead of focusing on race-based policies, they argue for improving early education and creating better economic opportunities for disadvantaged groups to provide a more sustainable solution to inequality.
Divisiveness and Polarization	Affirmative action policies can be seen as divisive, as they create resentment among those who feel unfairly treated. The polarizing nature of affirmative action is evident in the ongoing legal battles, such as Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), where critics argued that Michigan's undergraduate policy was too rigid and sparked widespread backlash, contributing to tensions around race and fairness in society.
Potential Harm to Minority Groups	Affirmative action can sometimes backfire and harm the very groups it aims to help. For example, critics argue that students admitted through affirmative action may struggle in highly competitive environments where they are academically underprepared, leading to higher dropout rates or lower academic performance. This phenomenon is often referred to as "mismatch theory," and has been used to challenge the effectiveness of race-based admissions policies.
Changing Public Opinion and Legal Precedents	Public opinion on affirmative action has shifted, with growing skepticism about its fairness and effectiveness. The 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruling reflects a legal shift against affirmative action, suggesting that the policy is increasingly seen as inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment under the law, as outlined in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This ruling reinforces the argument that race-conscious policies are no longer acceptable in today's society.

Immigration Reform

Past Efforts

• Dream Act: The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act was proposed to provide legal status to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children. Despite several attempts, it has not been passed into law.
• DACA: The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced by President Obama, provided temporary protection from deportation and work permits to eligible undocumented youth. However, it has faced legal challenges and uncertainty under subsequent administrations.

Current Challenges

• Immigration reform remains contentious in US politics, with deep divisions between parties on addressing the status of undocumented immigrants, border security, and asylum policies.
• Trump Administration: Implemented several restrictive immigration policies, including the travel ban on Muslim-majority countries, the "zero tolerance" policy leading to family separations at the border, and efforts to end DACA.
• Biden Administration: President Biden sought to reverse many of Trump's immigration policies by lifting the travel ban, halting the construction of the border wall, and attempting to protect DACA recipients. However, significant legislative reform has yet to be achieved.

Arguments For the Success of Immigration Reform in the U.S.

Argument	Explanation and Examples
DACA's Temporary Protections	The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, introduced by Obama in 2012, has provided temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for over 800,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children (often referred to as "Dreamers"). Despite facing legal challenges, DACA has been a lifeline for many, allowing recipients to work legally, pursue education, and contribute to the economy. For example, DACA recipients contribute billions in tax revenue annually.
Improved Legal Pathways	Immigration reforms have successfully expanded legal pathways for certain immigrant groups, including skilled workers. The U.S. has introduced visa programs like the H-1B visa, which allows companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations. These programs have helped address labor shortages in critical sectors like technology, engineering, and healthcare.
Economic Contributions	Proponents of immigration reform argue that immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy. Legal reforms allowing more immigrants to participate in the workforce help boost economic growth. For instance, many immigrants are entrepreneurs, with immigrant-owned businesses employing millions of Americans. Expanding immigration reform would continue to strengthen the U.S. labor market and foster innovation.
Bipartisan Support for Dreamers	While comprehensive immigration reform has stalled, there is widespread bipartisan support for protecting Dreamers and providing them with a path to citizenship. Public opinion polls show strong support for allowing young undocumented immigrants who grew up in the U.S. to stay, suggesting that progress can still be made in future immigration reforms. Efforts to codify DACA protections into law have garnered attention, even among moderate Republicans.
Ending Discriminatory Policies	Immigration reforms under the Biden administration have successfully reversed some of the more restrictive and discriminatory policies of the Trump era, such as the travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries. These actions represent a step towards more inclusive and humane immigration policies, as well as efforts to rebuild America's image as a welcoming nation for immigrants and refugees.
Biden's Reversal of Family Separation	Under President Biden, the controversial Trump-era "zero tolerance" policy that led to family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border has been ended. This was seen as a success for immigration reform advocates who viewed the policy as inhumane and harmful to children. Efforts to reunite separated families and create more humane immigration enforcement measures have been lauded by human rights groups.

Arguments Against the Success of Immigration Reform in the U.S.

Argument	Explanation and Examples
Failure to Pass Comprehensive Reform	Despite numerous attempts over the past two decades, the U.S. has been unable to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the status of undocumented immigrants, improves border security, and creates a more efficient legal immigration system. High-profile efforts, such as the proposed Dream Act and various bipartisan immigration bills, have stalled in Congress due to partisan divides, leaving millions of undocumented immigrants in legal limbo.
Ongoing Legal Challenges to DACA	The DACA program has faced constant legal challenges since its inception, creating uncertainty for its recipients. Although DACA provides temporary relief, its lack of permanence and the inability of Congress to pass a law that offers permanent protection means that recipients live in constant fear of deportation. The program's future remains uncertain, particularly after court rulings that have declared DACA unconstitutional.
Border Security and Unlawful Immigration	Critics argue that immigration reform efforts have failed to adequately address border security and the issue of unlawful immigration. Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, there have been concerns about surges in unauthorized border crossings. For example, the U.S.-Mexico border saw a rise in migrant arrivals under the Biden administration, leading to accusations that existing immigration policies are insufficient to manage border security effectively.
Partisan Gridlock on Immigration Reform	Immigration reform has become highly politicized, leading to gridlock in Congress. Divisions between Democrats and Republicans on key issues, such as the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and how to handle border security, have made it difficult to achieve meaningful progress. The failure to reach bipartisan agreement on immigration reform has been a major obstacle in addressing the long-term needs of both immigrants and the country.
Continued Use of Restrictive Policies	Although Biden reversed some Trump-era immigration policies, critics argue that many restrictive policies remain in place. For example, Title 42, a public health order allowing the rapid expulsion of migrants at the border during the COVID-19 pandemic, was still in effect for much of Biden's presidency. This policy has been criticized for violating asylum seekers' rights and exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the border.
Humanitarian Concerns at the Border	The handling of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border continues to draw criticism, with overcrowded detention facilities and poor conditions reported under both Trump and Biden administrations. The surge in migrant arrivals, particularly of unaccompanied minors, has led to concerns that the U.S. immigration system is ill-equipped to handle humanitarian crises, despite promises of reform. The inability to create safe, humane solutions for migrants seeking asylum is viewed as a major failure of U.S. immigration reform.

Conclusion

Efforts to promote equality in the United States through voting rights, representation, affirmative action, and immigration reform have seen both successes and challenges. While progress has been made through landmark Supreme Court rulings and legislative efforts, significant issues remain. The ongoing debates underscore the complexities of achieving true equality in a diverse society.