Home > Journals > JCRED > Vol. 38 (2026) > Iss. 1
Abstract
(Excerpt)
For a long time, affirmative action policies have been fixated on race and gender. Justifiably so, since both define historically marginalized groups that still need explicit federal protections to ensure that people in these groups move through economic and educational spaces effectively and safely. Legislators have attempted to meet this need for protection by explicitly naming race and gender as protected classes in anti-discrimination laws. However, legislators have overlooked a factor that not only is the underlying issue behind inequities in education but can help achieve the goals that Supreme Court Justices and legislators had in mind—this factor is socioeconomic status. While race should remain a plus factor when considering a student’s application, consideration of socioeconomic status should also be mandatory.
When deciding Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court should have upheld the decision in Grutter v. Bollinger because the substantial post-graduate governmental and social interests Justice O’Connor mentioned in the Grutter majority opinion remain relevant and still need protecting. However, the Justices needed to also focus on socioeconomic inequities to effectively address the issues that affirmative action is trying to correct. Furthermore, focusing on socioeconomic factors in the admissions process also ensures that society fulfills Justice O’Connor’s hope of not needing affirmative action in the future. This Note will discuss the origins of affirmative action, the legal history surrounding the policy, the inequities that students face before reaching the collegiate level, the current controversy surrounding the policy, and the outcome that the Court should have come to in order to effectively correct these issues.