Affirmative Action At UCLA: Case Study

The purpose of this action is to strive for equivalent open doors for everyone paying little heed to race or skin color. Race has always been a controversial factor in the college admission process. Critics who are supportive of the action say that colleges reach out toward minorities since they are the least diverse in the college environment. With the demographic they display they are urged most of the time to apply for college admission. Often these institutions offer some help to those minorities such

Thirdly, they point out that a diverse student body better prepares college students to interact and work with individuals of diverse backgrounds in the future. By creating an environment where students can be exposed to a racially diverse group of people, their interactions further reduce prejudice and misconceptions about race (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The amicus brief reveals that race is an inseparable component of an applicant 's’ experiences and should not be excluded from the admission officers’ consideration.

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

In the years since, interpretations of these laws by the U.S. Supreme Court has defined how affirmative action policies are to be implemented. The Court has held that affirmative action policies are Constitutional wherever it can be shown that ""¦ there has been a clear history of racial discrimination" (United Press International). In 1978, the Court ruling in Regents of University of California v. Bakke defined the concept of 'reverse discrimination' by holding that slots for medical school admissions could not be set aside for minorities, because it could result in admitting less qualified candidates based on racial quotas. In 2003, in Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court defined the concept of 'individualized consideration' when it declared that an undergraduate affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it focused on the race of applicants rather than their

Opinion: The court ruled that the University of California's policy was unconstitutional. They argued that a state is permitted to use race as a factor, however

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

Abigail Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz were just two young women from Texas trying to get into their dream school. In 2008 the young women applied at the University of Texas. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause being a clause that allows no state to deny any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the law”.

The University of Texas (UT) understood the importance of diversity; therefore, tried numerous race-neutral strategies to get minorities into their school. Sadly, Texas suffered from segregation at this time (1993), so not many minorities were going to UT. In consequence, Texas legislature passed a race-neutral system (1997) where the top 10% of a high school graduating class would be automatically admitted into UT. Even with the top 10% rule, Studies showed that minorities’, stayed the same and even decreased, due to still segregated public high schools. UT held discussions and meetings to find ways to increase minorities population in their institution. Finally, UT passed a system called holistic review; allowed students who didn’t graduate in the top 10% of the class to have a chance of admission. The system included; an Academic Index (AI), and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). An applicant’s PAI score is based on two

Many colleges have come across the topic of diversity one way or another. In 2003, Abigail Fisher an applicant at the University of Texas, sued the college for failing to acknowledge her right to equal protection under the constitution. In her argument she stated that she felt the college had racially profiled her, which led to the dismissal of her application during the admission process. In the end the supreme court ruled in the favor of the college concluding the rights of Fisher had not been violated (Ortiz 714). This is an example of how diversity has emerged problematically within different systems. The ongoing

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

Having done so it would still need to be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly injure any associated groups or individuals. Powell determined that attaining a diverse student body in an institution of higher education was a compelling state interest. In order to be narrowly tailored to this interest, the institution should use race as a "plus" factor. The quota system that the University of California applied set aside positions for minority students and focused on having a diverse statistical surface rather than attaining actual diverse backgrounds. Rather, as was done at Harvard, it was expected that all students should be considered together and race used as a bonus for minorities that would help account for the special perspective such students could bring to the campus (Schauer 589-597). While Powell's outline for programs had plenty of dissenters, none of them ever made it to a prominent position in the court system and so, since 1978, the rules of Bakke have been the proverbial law of the land. That is, until recently.

Race equality has been an arduous issue in the United States. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) is a landmark Supreme Court case that brought scrutiny to racial discrimination in the college admission process. The Encyclopedia Of Law And Higher Education introduces the discussion of the University of California at Davis’ special minority admissions policy at their medical school. The case was first heard by the Supreme Court of California and later taken to the United States Supreme Court (Russo 363). The short and long term effects of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) have changed the procedure for college admittance all over the United States of America.

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

Dean James turned the discussion to the broader scope of affirmative action efforts. In an effort to foster an environment that reflects diversity, Professors Celia Oyler and Robert Carter created a climate study of the College. The findings of that study prompted academic departments to set diversity goals for every two years. Diversity initiatives will be impacted by the shifting legal framework of recent Supreme Court cases such as the Michigan cases. Janice Robinson said Teachers College does not practice affirmative action based admissions. However, applicant screening for admission considers a multitude of factors during the student admission process.