The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Up and until this point in time, the court has generally ruled that promoting educational diversity is in fact a compelling state objective, but in today’s America, educational diversity has been established and is thriving. In this day and age, using race as a factor in college admissions is not needed. The Fourteenth amendment ensures the equal protection of the law to each and every citizen. We may not discriminate in order to promote
Fisher, but they held the the Court of Appeals did not hold the University’s admission policies to a standard of strict scrutiny so the judgement was incorrect. In previous judicial precedent in cases dealing with minority admissions, the Court has held that they are reviewable under the fourteenth amendment, these such cases must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether the policies are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. If the policy does not meet this standard, then race can not be considered in any admissions process. The Court stated the it was the job of the reviewing court to verify that the University policy in question was necessary to achieve a more diverse student body and the any race-neutral alternative would not achieve the same level of diversity. The Supreme Court said the lower courts did not conduct a sufficient strict scrutiny examination in this case.
In the case, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the respondent Joe Hogan, who attempted to enroll to the MUW’s School of Nursing, was denied admission (“Mississippi University for,” n.d.). The website, informs that the reason why he was denied enrollment for credit in the School of Nursing, is was created the controversy of whether the decision of the university was a violation to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reached to a conclusion after analyzing deeply if the reason that the state had to deny enrollment to Hogan had a reasonable justification. The court’s decision could impact and create changes in the educational system in the Mississippi University
Hunter Johnson CRN 10774 Term Paper Political Actors are not just any elected officials, but they can be any organization, group, or person that has an influence on any political issue. In the Texas affirmative action case, many political actors are involved. Edward Blum runs a group who is working on ending affirmative action. He was along side Abigail Fisher helping her though this case. Another political actor was Justice Clarence Thomas.
In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university 's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school 's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. " The college was asked to at least consider blacks in the admittance of college and they were asked to not use quotas in the admission
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Supreme Court decided that the amendment of Michigan’s Constitution which banned affirmative action at public institutions was constitutional. Prior to the enactment of this law, Michigan residents had voted in favor of the proposed amendment that prohibited consideration of race or sex in admissions to Michigan’s public universities. In turn, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, sued state officials-- arguing that this amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Public colleges and universities in the United States use a variety of factors to determine which students will be accepted. Universities often want a student body with diverse academic interests, talents, and backgrounds. They consider factors such as applicants’ grades, standardized test scores, community service, athletic or musical ability, and geographic location. Sometimes, universities also consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity. This case is about whether the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.
Law Day Essay The 14th Amendment has played a large role in the history of the United States, and still affects us to this day. One major role that it has played a part of recently is, Affirmative Action in the U.S. and whether it goes against the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment or not. The basis behind the installation of Affirmative Action was to make amends for the racial intolerance held by many towards minorities during the early-mid 1900’s. It was put into effect to help increase enrollment of African-Americans, and other ethnicities that had been profiled against, to help them get into schools that had previously segregated race or denied them access all together.
With knowledge about America’s extensive history of racial tensions, discrimination, and segregation, however, this appears to be an appropriate method of academic assistance and equality in regards to college admissions. The nationwide affirmative action program based on race appears to be a fair and reliable method of college admittance; however, there remain slight discrepancies, like a potential for reverse discrimination, which cannot be ignored. Proponents on all sides of the academic spectrum agree that using a different criteria for college admissions, socioeconomic status, could prove to be the better option in keeping with the promotion of diversity while establishing reasonable boundaries for the number of admitted students (“Socioeconomic Status” 79). Similarly to how Affirmative Action in college admissions currently gives advantage to students of ethnic minority, affirmative action will begin to give advantage to students who live in families of low socioeconomic status. Additionally, this new criteria will serve the core values of promoting diversity, equal opportunity, fairness, and the elimination of discrimination in college admissions.
Bollinger, Barbara Grutter challenged the University of Michigan Law School’s admission requirements when she was rejected from the law school. She claimed that she was only rejected because, “the law school used race ‘as a predominant factor, giving minority applicants a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials form disfavored racial groups’” (Epermanis, Franklin, Robinson, 2007, p. 34). The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan claimed that Grutter would have been admitted if she would have been black or Hispanic. Epermanis, Franklin, and Robinson (2007) found
People always contemplate whether college admissions are fair. Some schools believe that admissions should be completely merit-based whereas other schools believe that admissions should be primarily merit-based but allow racial preferences to be favored over others with the same credentials. Racial preferences in admissions are one of the most common talked about topics among education in the Supreme Court. The plan for college admissions was to incorporate affirmative action, which is “the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who are perceived to suffer from discrimination within a culture.” Many people think that affirmative action should be banned from college admissions to give each student a fair chance.
Why We Shouldn’t Use Racial Quotas in College Admissions In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in the Regents of University of California vs. Bakke case, that the use of racial preferences in college admissions violates the Equal Protections Clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Equal Protections Clause says that no state shall deny a person equal protection within jurisdiction. Since then, a great deal of Affirmative Action cases against colleges have transpired. There is much dispute among colleges and potential students on the issue.
The role of affirmative action in college admissions has been debated between critics who argue that it provides a fair access to higher education for minorities and critics who argue that it promotes discrimination against white students instead. Despite the numerous amount of court cases that have challenged race-based factors in college admissions, the Supreme Court’s final rulings have always supported affirmative action in education. However, the recent cases of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin has proposed the Supreme Court to review the possibility of abolishing affirmative action. Thus, this case’s impact on the Supreme Court’ new stance on racial-based admissions has garnered the attention of numerous news outlets that media
Throughout many of the affirmative action legal cases, one of the main arguments from proponents is that it is necessary in order to right the wrongs of past racial discrimination. Some say that affirmative action is justified because even though white applicants may be more qualified, this is only because they did not face the same hardships as their minority counterparts (Rachels, Ethics, 1973). Many argue if we do not integrate disadvantaged minorities into mainstream social institutions, they will continue to suffer the discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries and that this is detrimental to not only the minorities but also society as a whole (Anderson, 2002, 1270–71). However, the debate has recently shifted to the benefits of diversity in the classroom which the Supreme Court has affirmed as being a positive thing
