Two Paths to the Same Goal: Fixing Unequal Starts

In both the United States and India, affirmative action policies raise the same underlying question: can the state actively correct unequal starting points, or does doing so create new forms of unfairness?

In the US, affirmative action was introduced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, initially through executive orders requiring federal contractors to take active steps against discrimination in hiring.

Over time, the policy expanded into university admissions, where race could be considered as one factor among others to build a diverse student body.

That approach was fundamentally challenged in June 2023, when the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that race-conscious admissions violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

Affirmative Action in the United States

affirmative action : la discrimination positive
social mobility : la mobilité sociale
to be challenged / to be overturned : être contesté / être annulé
access to university : l'accès à l'université

Concrete example: after the 2023 ruling, several top US universities reported sharp drops in Black and Hispanic student enrolment the following year, reviving the debate over how to ensure fair access without race-based criteria.

The Indian Reservation Model

a reservation system : un système de quotas
caste / class : la caste / la classe sociale
to erode a gap : réduire un écart

Concrete example: since independence in 1947, India has reserved a share of government jobs and university places for members of historically disadvantaged castes, a policy written directly into the Constitution and still expanded today.

Key takeaways

Affirmative action (1965) : US policy launched under Johnson, now restricted after 2023.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) : Supreme Court ruling ending race-conscious admissions.
Reservation system : India's constitutional equivalent, still in force.

Affirmative Action and First Nations Representation