Justice Goodwin Liu reexamined seminal affirmative action in higher education legal cases beginning with the landmark 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. Liu argued that the Bakke and Gratz lawsuits were grounded in an underlying causation fallacy, largely because neither case involved enough applicants of color to change the likelihood of Bakke’s and Gratz’s admittance. Recent lawsuits from self-identified White and Asian, rejected applicants have emerged against top-ranked universities. This article revisits Liu’s assertions by applying his critical approach to those cases. Data indicate too few applicants of color to change the likelihood of recent plaintiffs’ admittance. Concluding arguments name Causation Fallacy 2.0 as a useful tool for explaining the cultural politics of race surrounding affirmative action admissions cases.
BarnesM. L.ChemerinskyE.Onwuachi-WilligA. (2015). Judging Opportunity Lost: Assessing the Viability of Race-Based Affirmative Action After Fisher v. University of Texas. 62, UCLA L. Rev. 272.
2.
BellD. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518-533.
3.
BellD. A. (1984). The hurdle too high: Class-based roadblocks to racial remediation. Buffalo Law Review, 33, 1-34.
4.
BellD. A. (2004). Race, racism and American law. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
5.
BoddieE. C. (2015). The sins of innocence in standing doctrine. Vanderbilt Law Review, 68, 297-380.
6.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2002). “We are all Americans!” The Latin Americanization of racial stratification in the USA. Race & Society, 5, 3-16.
7.
BowenW.G.BokD. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan et al., 701 F.3d 466 (6th Cir., 2012).
8.
CrenshawK.GotandaN.PellerG.ThomasK. (Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New York, NY: The New Press.
9.
DeCuirJ. T.DixsonA. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26-31.
10.
DelgadoR.StefancicJ. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press.
11.
DixsonA. D.RousseauC. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 7-27.
12.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir., 2011).
13.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. (2013).
14.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 758 F.3d 633 (5th Cir., 2014).
15.
FullinwiderR. K.LichtenbergJ. (2004). Leveling the playing field: Justice, politics, and college admissions. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
GansH. (1999). The possibility of a new racial hierarchy in the twenty-first century United States. In LamontM. (Ed.), The cultural territories of race: Black and white boundaries (pp. 371-390). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
18.
Grutter vs. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
19.
GuinierL. (2003, November). The Supreme Court, 2002 term: Comment: Admissions Rituals as Political Acts: Guardians at the gates of our democratic ideals. Harvard Law Review, 117, p. 113.
20.
HarpalaniV. (2015, June). Narrowly tailored but broadly compelling: Defending race-conscious admissions after Fisher. Seton Hall Law Review, 45, p. 761.
21.
HarrisC. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707-1791.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education?Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7-24.
28.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. F. I. V. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
29.
LiuG. (2002a). The causation fallacy: Bakke and the basic arithmetic of selective admissions. Michigan Law Review, pp. 1045-1107.
30.
LiuG. (2002b, April14). The myth and math of affirmative action. The Washington Post Company, p. B01.
31.
LynnM.AdamsM. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 87-92.
32.
MatsudaM.LawrenceC.DelgadoR.CrenshawK. (Eds.). (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
O’NeilR. M. (1970). Preferential admissions: Equalizing access to legal education. University of Toledo Law Review, 2, 281-320.
34.
ParkerL.LynnM. (2002). “What’s race go to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 7-22.
35.
PrimusR. A. (2003). Equal protection and disparate impact: Round three. Harvard Law Review, 117, 494-587.
36.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
37.
RooseveltK.III. (2015, February). The ironies of affirmative action. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 17, p. 729.
38.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) et al., 572 U.S.____ (2014).
39.
ShulmanJ. L.BowenW. G. (2001). The Game of Life: College sports and educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
SolorzanoD. G.OrnelasA. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/O and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. High School Journal, 87(3), 15-26.
41.
Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al. (2014), 1:14-cv-14176, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
42.
Students for Fair Admissions (SSFA) Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al. (2014), 1:14-cv-00954, U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina (Greensboro).
43.
TeranishiR. T.Bordoloi PazichL. (2013). The inclusion and representation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in America’s equity agenda in higher education. In LynnM.DixsonA. (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 204-215). New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
Thompson DorseyD. N. (2008). An examination of the legal debate regarding race-based education policies from 1849-1964. Negro Educational Review, 59(1-2), 7-26.
45.
Thompson DorseyD. N.Venzant ChambersT. L. (2014). Growing C-D-R (Cedar): Working the intersections of interest convergence and Whiteness as property in the affirmative action legal debate. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 56-87.
46.
TuanM. (1998). Forever foreigners or honorary whites? The Asian ethnic experience today. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
WarrenJ. W.TwineF. W. (1997). White Americans, the new minority? Non-Blacks and the ever-expanding boundaries of whiteness. Journal of Black Studies, 28, 200-218.
50.
WiececkW. M.HamiltonJ. L. (2014). Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting structural racism in the workplace. Louisiana Law Review, 74. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol74/iss4/5
51.
YossoT. J. (2002). Toward a critical race curriculum. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 93-107.
