    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1995, Book I)]
    [June 13, 1995]
    [Pages 877-878]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Statement on the Supreme Court Decision on Affirmative Action
    June 13, 1995

        The Supreme Court's decision sets a new legal standard for judging
    affirmative action, but it must not set us back in our fight to end
    discrimination and create equal opportunity for all.
        Despite great progress, discrimination and exclusion on the basis of
    race and gender are still facts of life in America. I have always
    believed that affirmative action is needed to remedy discrimination and
    to create a more inclusive society that truly provides equal
    opportunity. But I have also said that affirmative action must be
    carefully justified and must be done the right way. The Court's opinion
    in Adarand is not inconsistent with that view.
        It is regrettable that already, with the ink barely dry, many are
    using the Court's opinion as a reason to abandon that fight. Exaggerated
    claims about the end of affirmative action, whether in celebration or
    dismay, do not serve the interest all of us have in a responsible
    national conversation about how to move forward together and create
    equal opportunity.
        The Supreme Court has raised the hurdle, but it is not
    insurmountable. Make no mistake: The Court has approved affirmative
    action that is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. The
    constitutional test is now tougher than it was, but I am confident that
    the test can be met in many cases. We know that from

    [[Page 878]]

    the experience of State and local governments, which have operated under
    the tougher standard for some years now.
        Some weeks ago, I directed my staff conducting the review of Federal
    affirmative action programs to ask agencies a number of probing
    questions about programs that make race or sex a condition of
    eligibility for any kind of benefit. What, concretely, is the
    justification for this particular program? Have race and gender-neutral
    alternatives been considered? Is the program flexible? Does it avoid
    quotas, in theory and in practice? Is it transitional and temporary? Is
    it narrowly drawn? Is it balanced, so that it avoids concentrating its
    benefits and its costs? These are tough questions, but they are the
    right policy questions, and they need answers.
        I have instructed the team conducting the administration's
    affirmative action review to include an analysis of the Adarand decision
    and its implications in their report.