Moving away from a strict scrutiny standard for affirmative action implications for public management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article addresses the concept of strict scrutiny, the burden of persuasion test used by the courts to determine the constitutionality of affirmative action. Through a systematic analysis of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it illustrates that strict scrutiny has been applied in an inconsistent, arbitrary manner and, therefore, should not serve as the basis for judicial review of affirmative action programs. It shows that the rule of law established under the Civil Rights Act provides an equally if not more compelling basis for judging the legality of affirmative action programs. Relying on the legal standards advanced by the courts under civil rights statutes provides managers with greater flexibility in developing and implementing affirmative action programs. In effect, the ability of governments to promote diversity of their workforces is greatly enhanced.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-141
Number of pages19
JournalAmerican Review of Public Administration
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2007

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Keywords

  • Affirmative action
  • Equal protection
  • Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Grutter v. Bollinger
  • Strict scrutiny

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Moving away from a strict scrutiny standard for affirmative action implications for public management'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this