Final answer:
Opponents of affirmative action argue that it may create unfair preference based on race or ethnicity, counter to principles of merit-based admission or employment. Strict scrutiny mandates the government to justify these policies with a compelling interest. Legal cases like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke have shaped the current understanding and application of affirmative action.
Step-by-step explanation:
Opponents of affirmative action often question why strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, is applied to policies designed to redress historical discrimination. Under this rigorous standard, the government must illustrate a compelling interest to justify differential treatment. Strictures of strict scrutiny arose, notably with the landmark case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the Supreme Court struck down racial quotas but allowed for race to be one of many factors in admissions decisions. Further, challenges, such as Fisher v. University of Texas, continue to evaluate the nuanced balance between striving for diversity and ensuring merit-based selection. From an opposing viewpoint, affirmative action may inadvertently disadvantage individuals based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status and question the efficacy and fairness of such policies in the pursuit of correcting historical injustices without undermining principles of fairness and individual merit.