Evaluate the view that Affirmative Action has been more effective at protecting rights than the Supreme Court

(1) Point against my view

• Affirmative Action involves immediate steps to correct historical injustices by providing opportunities to marginalised groups. This direct approach can be more effective than waiting for legal rulings.

(1) Example for point against my view

• The "Texas Top 10% Rule" guarantees admission to state universities for students in the top 10% of their high school class, directly supporting diverse high schools and helping increase minority representation in higher education .

(1) Point for my view

• Decisions by the Court have enduring effects, establishing legal principles that govern future cases and legislative actions, providing a more stable and permanent protection of rights compared to the potentially temporary nature of Affirmative Action policies.

(1) Example for point for my view

• The SC’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) struck down mandatory union fees for public sector employees, ensuring that workers' First Amendment rights were not subject to changing political landscapes, a level of protection Affirmative Action cannot offer.

(2) Point against my view

• These policies help individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds access better education and job opportunities, promoting long-term social and economic mobility, which judicial decisions alone may not achieve as directly.

(2) Example for point against my view

• Uni of Michigan’s Go Blue Guarantee program offers free tuition to in-state students from families with incomes below $65,000, rapidly increasing access to higher education for low-income students.

(2) Point for my view

• The Court serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches, preventing overreach and protecting against unconstitutional actions, a role Affirmative Action cannot fulfil.

(2) Example for point for my view

• The Court’s ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, illustrating its role in interpreting constitutional safeguards. While controversial, this decision underscores the Court’s authority in defining the scope of constitutional protections, which can supersede Affirmative Action policies.

(3) Point against my view

• Affirmative Action acknowledges and actively works against systemic and institutionalised discrimination. This approach can be more effective in tackling deep-rooted inequalities compared to the broader, more indirect rulings of the Supreme Court.

(3) Example for point against my view

• In 1970, white students made up 91% of college enrolment. In 2021, that number decreased to about 50%, with Black students accounting for 12.6% of college enrollees, Hispanic students 21.4%, and Asian students 7.1%.

(3) Point for my view

• The Court interprets the Constitution to protect individual rights, ensuring that any policies or laws comply with constitutional standards. This fundamental protection can be stronger than the targeted but limited scope of Affirmative Action.

(3) Evidence for point for my view

• The SC's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) extended workplace protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to LGBTQ+ employees nationwide. This decision provided uniform protections against discrimination for millions of workers, which Affirmative Action policies could not achieve on the same scale.