NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1215959
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2016
Pages: 15
Abstractor: As Provided
ISSN: ISSN-0022-2984
Examining the Paradox between Dismantling "De Jure" Segregation and Affirmative Action: Implications from Contemporary Higher Education Case Law
Boykin, Tiffany Fountaine; Palmer, Robert T.
Journal of Negro Education, v85 n2 p114-128 Spr 2016
The racial diversification of America's higher education system has been at the forefront of legal argument for the last seventy-five years. Ground-breaking decisions birthed the inclusion of affirmative action policies in higher education after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In recent years, both the utility and constitutionality of race-based admission practices have been challenged, and in some cases, have threatened to destroy contemporary notions of diversity, fostered through affirmative action policies. As affirmative action policies continue to be attacked and ultimately prohibited in some states, many colleges are halting the use of race-sensitive admission practices. As such, the purpose of this research is to discuss a policy contradiction by which public postsecondary educational institutions are aiming to foster the racial diversity of their campuses. To help those institutions where the use of affirmative action is permissible, but leaders are fearful of doing so because of litigation concerns, this article provides several recommendations for institutions to promote racial diversity on their campus.
Howard University School of Education. 2900 Van Ness Street NW, Washington, DC 20008. Tel: 202-806-8120; Fax: 202-806-8434; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education; Postsecondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: California
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Plessy v Ferguson; Civil Rights Act 1964; Gratz et al v Bollinger et al; Grutter et al v Bollinger et al; Bakke v Regents of University of California; Defunis v Odegaard; Hopwood v Texas; Proposition 209 (California 1996); Adams v Richardson