Grounds of Affirmative Action

ABSTRACT: On what grounds is affirmative action permissible? The apex courts of two of the world's largest democracies have recently answered this question in seemingly diametrically opposite ways. In the case of India, the Supreme Court expanded the list of grounds of affirmative action to include economic status. In the case of the United States of America, the Supreme Court retracted its support for affirmative action based on race. Despite what may seem like contradictory positions, both courts undid affirmative action as a remedy for discrimination. The article explores how the courts' fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of grounds contributed to this. In particular, it interrogates the understanding of grounds such as caste and race exclusively in terms of social status and as divorced from material deprivation. Instead, the article argues that a better appreciation of grounds as "multivalent" is important in addressing not only a broad range of disadvantages through affirmative action but also in justifying affirmative action itself as a transformative remedy.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Human Rights Quarterly
Published
2025-04-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2025.a958148
Primary Topic
American Constitutional Law and Politics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Grounds of Affirmative Action

Shreya Atrey
Human Rights Quarterly
American Constitutional Law and Politics
article

Grounds of Affirmative Action

Shreya Atrey
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT: On what grounds is affirmative action permissible? The apex courts of two of the world's largest democracies have recently answered this question in seemingly diametrically opposite ways. In the case of India, the Supreme Court expanded the list of grounds of affirmative action to include economic status. In the case of the United States of America, the Supreme Court retracted its support for affirmative action based on race. Despite what may seem like contradictory positions, both courts undid affirmative action as a remedy for discrimination. The article explores how the courts' fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of grounds contributed to this. In particular, it interrogates the understanding of grounds such as caste and race exclusively in terms of social status and as divorced from material deprivation. Instead, the article argues that a better appreciation of grounds as "multivalent" is important in addressing not only a broad range of disadvantages through affirmative action but also in justifying affirmative action itself as a transformative remedy.

Human Rights QuarterlyVol. 47(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
American Constitutional Law and Politics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.