Adarand Constructors V. Pena

Adarand Constructors v. Pena

1) Yes and no; the U.S. constitution should be read to provide individuals or groups with a right to equal protection of the law. However, it should be read with strict scrutiny and allow certain "remedial race-based actions" in which there is a need for diversity and fairness, and be the voice of the people, including the minorities, which really have no other voice.

2) Yes, the federal and/or state governments should authorize and take "remedial race-based actions" when necessary. Certain minority groups have faced discrimination in the past and the only way to remedy it and allow theses minorities to "catch up" with the rest of the population is for the state to intervene. Simply race-neutral policies are only neutral to the majority in that minorities are for the most part, born with a disadvantage.

3) The tests that the court should use to determine whether government authorizations of remedial race-based actions are constitutional are to see if the person is both socially and economically disadvantaged. Race alone should not be the only factor. However, because of past discrimination, a great deal of minorities are both socially and economically disadvantaged.

4) The Adarand decision effects what public universities may require in hiring and admissions in that it has now set a powerful precedent which may be a strong recommendation to all other agencies in what their hiring and admissions practices should encompass.

5) The "discriminatory laws/acts" of American Indian tribal governments are justifiably part of a unique arrangement exempting them from general federal equal protection analysis in that they have their own rules and laws separate from U.S. culture and customs. To intervene in their system in this particular instance would be a slippery slope, and the U.S. may try