Affirmative action is one of the most effective tools for redressing the injustices caused by our nation's historic discrimination against people of color and women, and for leveling what has long been an uneven playing field.

Universities should be free to select those minority students it believes most likely to enter and succeed in professions, or otherwise help in reducing racial stereotype and prejudice.

Martha Minow and Robert Post, the deans of Harvard and Yale Law Schools, respectively, discuss why a ban on affirmative action would be a tragedy for higher education.

Substantial progress in increasing black student’s pre-collegiate performance is critical to eliminating the need for affirmative action. Absent such progress, the elimination of racial preferences in admissions will lead to substantial declines in black representation at the nation’s most selective colleges and universities.

Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause or political-restructuring doctrine by amending the state constitution to prohibit public universities and schools from using race in their admissions processes?

In <em>Fisher v. University of Texas</em>, the justices sent a thorny affirmative action case concerning the university’s program to achieve racial diversity back to the lower courts for further consideration under a tougher standard of review.

Together, <em>Gratz</em> and <em>Grutter</em> affirmed and refined the Supreme Court's position on affirmative action a quarter century after its initial decision in <em>Regents of University of California v. Bakke</em> (1978). The Court made clear that affirmative action programs are only constitutional if they consider race as one factor in an individualized evaluation, and only to achieve the goal of "class diversity."

Should colleges and universities continue to take race into account for the sake of diversity on campus?