Final answer:
The Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action outline that while racial quotas are impermissible, considering race as one factor in college admissions can be constitutional if it passes strict scrutiny and serves a compelling government interest without being the sole basis of admission.
Step-by-step explanation:
Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the policies of affirmative action in the United States education system. Initial cases such as Bakke v. University of California established that fixed quotas based on race in college admissions violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, a more nuanced approach was sanctioned in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed race to be used as a "plus factor" in admissions to create a diverse student body, stressing that such policies must pass strict scrutiny and cannot be quota-based.
The legal discussions around affirmative action revolve around whether it meets the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause, with subsequent cases like Fisher v. University of Texas reviewing the necessity and proportionality of affirmative action in university admissions.
Affirmative action policies are aimed at redressing historical discrimination and are designed to be narrowly tailored, serving a compelling governmental interest while being the least restrictive means available.
The strict scrutiny standard, which is the highest level of judicial review, is applied to government policies that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, including affirmative action programs.
This legal lens requires that there must be a compelling governmental interest behind any program that treats people differently because of race, and that the program must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal without using quotas.