As the nation approaches the two-year anniversary of the Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision upholding the consideration of race as one of many factors in higher education admissions, advocates in support of affirmative action say that threats to the policy still persist.

On June 23, 2003, the Court held (5-4) that racial diversity was a compelling state interest and that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policies were narrowly tailored to fit this compelling interest.

On the eve of this historic anniversary, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund/Americans for a Fair Chance (LCCREF/AFC) is releasing a new report, "Anti-Affirmative Action Threats in the States 1997-2004" detailing the persistent threats to affirmative action in the country.

The report provides a seven-year overview of attacks that opponents of equal opportunity have made through legislation and resolutions, ballot initiative campaigns, and state executive orders. The report also includes a preview of threats launched so far in 2005.

The strongest threat to affirmative action at the state level is the proposed ballot initiative sponsored by Ward Connerly, which would end affirmative action in higher education, public contracting, and hiring in Michigan. Connerly was unsuccessful in placing his so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" on the 2004 ballot, but is attempting to qualify for the 2006 ballot.

Connerly has also stated he wants to introduce initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and New Hampshire. All four of these states have had anti-affirmative action legislation sponsored and defeated in the past few years.

While legislative threats have decreased to some degree, three states--Colorado, Massachusetts and New Jersey--introduced a total of eight anti-affirmative action bills and/or resolutions in 2004. While most died at the end of the year, New Jersey's two bills are still pending.

Two states, Massachusetts and New York, have introduced bills and/or resolutions this year that pose potential threats to equal opportunity in education and affirmative action programs.

Karen McGill Lawson, executive director of LCCREF, said reports like "Anti-Affirmative Action Threats in the States 1997-2004" perform a critical function. "In the two years since Grutter, affirmative action opponents have remained vigilant in their opposition to equal opportunity for all Americans. As supporters of equal opportunity, it is our responsibility to not only monitor this activity but continue to educate and inform the public about the continuing importance of affirmative action," Lawson said.

Related Links

Brief Report: Anti-Affirmative Action Threats in the States 1997-2004

Full Report: Anti-Affirmative Action Threats in the States 1997-2004

Americans for a Fair Chance