guidelines for affirmative actions, it was far from ending the debate as to whether race should be used or not. The Supreme Court cases Gratz v. Bollinger is an example that affirmative action is still highly debated today. Jennifer Gratz, a white female, claimed her rejection from the University of Michigan was unfair as lees qualified minorities were admitted over her. The court sided with the University of Michigan claiming its admission policies were fair, and correctly adhered to the Bakke decision, admitting minorities in order to promote diversity. Justice O’Connor supports affirmative action in her majority opinion: “The hallmark of that policy is its focus on academic ability coupled with a flexible assessment of applicants’ talents, experiences, and potential “to contribute to the learning of those around them.” The policy requires admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the information available in the file” (Moses, 14). The court’s decision in this case demonstrates that race can be used in admission decisions if the universities policy contributes to a better education.

A major question facing the use of race-based admissions is if affirmative action is truly benefiting minority students. According to a study done by the U.S. Department of Education, in 1980 the percentages of college graduates for Whites was 25%, 11.6% for Blacks, and 7.7% for Hispanics. Whereas in 2000 college graduates rates for Whites was 34%, 17.8% for Blacks, and 9.7% Hispanics. These statistics show that affirmative action has benefited minorities, though not to a great extent. Another study by the U.S. Department of Education in 2001 examines the percentages of whites and minorities at U.S. Universities. Blacks enrollment from 1976 to 1995 had risen from 6.3% to 7.6%, Hispanics went from 2.1% to 4.4%, Asians went from 2% to 4.9%, and Whites went from 89.2% to 86.2%. These stats illustrate that while race-based admission has raised the level of minority enrollment, its affect has been quite small. Proponents of affirmative action cite these studies as evidence that greater emphasis needs to be put on getting minorities enrolled, while opponents claim that affirmative action is an ineffective method for spurring proportional representation. Critics also point out that giving minorities admission advantages is racist and encourages stereotypes and discrimination. “Some critics, including a few African Americans also say racial preferences stigmatize the intended beneficiaries by creating the impression that they could not be successful without being given some advantage over whites” (Jost, 742). While affirmative action has increased minority enrollment in colleges, it can also lead to racist ideas and trivialize minority’s achievements.

Another issue within affirmative action is if race-based admission policies should be used to remedy past discrimination toward minorities. There was conflicting evidence about whether or not the Supreme Court believes providing a remedy for past discrimination should be a role of affirmative action. The article by Kenneth Jost in CQ Researcher, says “The Supreme Court, in Bakke, said that racial classifications were constitutional if they were used as a remedy for proven discrimination” (Jost, 741). Contradictorily, David A. Harvey’s paper claimed that the Supreme Court said race-based admissions used to remedy past discrimination was unconstitutional. These contradicting views are a result of the various interpretations people have concluded from ruling regarding affirmative action. These pieces of scholarly research demonstrate that people, who have different opinions toward affirmative action programs, can look at the same evidence, and come to different conclusions. Those who favor race-based admission would support the idea that providing