Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

It's no time to retreat from affirmative action, voting rights

By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor
June 10, 2013 -- Updated 1443 GMT (2243 HKT)
<strong>Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013):</strong> The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court. Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court.
HIDE CAPTION
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
Supreme Court cases that changed America
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Two cases before the Supreme Court challenge longstanding policies on race
  • Affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act came out of the civil rights era of the 1960s
  • Julian Zelizer says despite progress in racial issues, both policies are still needed

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America."

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court is expected to issue a number of historic decisions in the coming weeks about how the government deals with race issues.

With the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action on the agenda, the nation is watching closely to see what the highest court will say.

The court is tackling affirmative action through a case involving the University of Texas and a student who was denied admission. With the Voting Rights Act, the court is looking again at the law, including Section 5, which stipulates that some jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination are required to submit changes in districting and voting laws for clearance.

Julian Zelizer
Julian Zelizer

Both issues came out of the 1960s, one under President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and another under President Richard Nixon in 1969, with the intention of helping to correct more than a century of racial inequality.

In 1965, in the wake of massive grassroots protests, Congress passed the historic legislation that ensured the federal government would protect the right of African Americans to freely participate in the vote. Johnson responded to immense pressure that came from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights protesters, who put themselves on the line and suffered violence to obtain this right.

Selected quotes from Supreme Court affirmative action

In 1969, the Department of Labor launched the Philadelphia Plan, requiring unions involved in projects receiving federal funds to hire a percentage of African Americans in proportion to the composition of the local population. Nixon supported this plan as much for politics as policy. His goal was to divide the Democratic coalition by pitting African Americans against organized labor.

The goal of both programs, though born for very different political reasons, was for the government to proactively tackle problems that aggravated racial equality. Johnson's speech in 1965 laid out the rationale.

Sonia Sotomayor: I was an alien
Affirmative action case in court's hands

In a powerful address at Howard University, he said: "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."

These programs have been controversial from the start.

A summary of major upcoming Supreme Court decisions

As the late historian Hugh Davis Graham argued with regards to affirmative action, they moved away from the idea that the government would guarantee individual rights after they had been violated toward establishing policies whereby the government would take steps to ensure that racist practices would not even be allowed to occur. The goal, though more controversial, was to take stronger steps to design institutions that would not perpetuate racism.

During the late 1960s, some members of the Nixon administration tried to push for changes to the Voting Rights Act that would have severely weakened the legislation, including dismantling the clearance provision that required governments holding elections to gain approval from the Justice Department to any changes in their voting process. But the supporters pushed back, and the laws remained intact.

There have been repeated challenges to the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action, especially as it was extended into areas other than employment, such as education, but they have failed.

This time the threat seems greater than before. The efforts of conservatives to transform the composition of the federal courts in a rightward direction are finally starting to pay off. For the first time, many experts feel the conservatives have the numbers they need to make substantial changes in both of these laws.

The decisions will have huge ramifications. If the court begins to knock down these two pillars of civil rights policies, they would set back the government's power to deal with racial problems.

These programs have been a stunning success, slowly starting to repair the immense damage caused by the nation's history of racism. The Voting Rights Act produced big increases in the number of African Americans voting and produced several generations of African American elected officials.

Three questions for Clarence Thomas

Affirmative action has helped bolster the African American middle class and opened access to institutions from education to employment.

To be sure, there are legitimate questions that have been raised about both of these programs, areas where they certainly could be strengthened. Experts have debated how affirmative action programs could do a better job, particularly by putting emphasis on giving those who suffer from class-based discrimination more access to higher education rather than relying solely on race as a standard. But improving and strengthening programs is different than knocking them down.

If the court makes the decision to turn back the clock on these two policies, it would be a huge setback for the civil rights movement that changed the nation 50 years ago. Even with all the progress we've seen, the court must be cautious before weakening programs that respond to the many racial challenges that still need to be fixed, as well as to new ones that have emerged.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1023 GMT (1823 HKT)
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 0639 GMT (1439 HKT)
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2020 GMT (0420 HKT)
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1456 GMT (2256 HKT)
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 2101 GMT (0501 HKT)
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1453 GMT (2253 HKT)
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 2253 GMT (0653 HKT)
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1550 GMT (2350 HKT)
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2123 GMT (0523 HKT)
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 1426 GMT (2226 HKT)
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1439 GMT (2239 HKT)
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1738 GMT (0138 HKT)
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1828 GMT (0228 HKT)
Rip Rapson says the city's 'Grand Bargain' saved pensions and a world class art collection by pulling varied stakeholders together, setting civic priorities and thinking outside the box
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2310 GMT (0710 HKT)
Glenn Schwartz says the airing of the company's embarrassing emails might wake us up to the usefulness of talking in-person instead of electronically
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2233 GMT (0633 HKT)
The computer glitch that disrupted air traffic over the U.K. on Friday was a nuisance, but not dangerous, says Les Abend
ADVERTISEMENT