[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.