For decades, selective U.S. colleges and universities have considered, among other factors, whether applicants are from underrepresented minority groups, including Black, Hispanic and Native American. For just as long, critics of affirmative action have questioned whether race-conscious admissions policies are fair or warranted. The Supreme Court weighed in on Thursday, striking down affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Reuters spoke to several advocates who have contributed to this conversation about race, history and education over the years. By the time former President Bill Clinton asked Christopher Edley Jr. to review the federal government's affirmative action initiatives in the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court had outlawed quota-based affirmative action and California voters would soon ban even nuanced consideration of race in public hiring, contracting and college admissions. Edley, 70, who believes affirmative action will be necessary until the legacy of slavery is no longer evident and poverty is not more concentrated among one group than another, got to work. He concluded that affirmative action as part of an approach that aimed to remedy historic disadvantages and did not favor unqualified applicants over qualified ones could still be used. Clinton introduced the "Mend it, but don't end it" slogan in a 1995 speech. Soon after, Edley helped to develop legal arguments showing that diversity not only helps under-represented groups, but also supports excellence at universities and in the workplace. "I don't think the job is done until the picture is bloodless," said Edley, a former Harvard law professor who now is at UC Berkeley's law school. "I think there is still work to be done, and there have to be effective tools for doing it."