Affirmative Action Case Study In College

Affirmative Action has become one of the most controversial issues regarding college admissions. It is an issue that exposes profiling to its highest extent. Race, gender and income now become vital factors in education opportunities. Affirmative Action is the procedure that is used as a criteria in admissions that will increase the points a college applicant receives on their application evaluation based on the previous factors. Whether race should be considered in the admission of a college applicant, is without a doubt a must in all states. Affirmative Action definitely will improve the opportunities of a minority student applying at a university but it will not be the deciding factor. When

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

Recently the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave schools across the country a higher standard to abide by when using affirmative action when making admission decisions. This case was brought to attention by Abigail Fisher, a white women rejected by the University of Texas. The verdict was a tame one and ruled in favor of Fisher with admissions requiring ““no workable race-neutral alternatives” when a student’s acceptance status is determined. This avoided much debate compared to the capacity the Court has for changing the nation.

This idea of admission “quotas” was short lived however and in 1978 the Supreme Court in the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke ruled that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violated the Equal Protection Clause, but race can be used as one factor for college admission (Week). Affirmative action originated as a type of redistribution policy or tool to aid in the social and economic mobility of minorities. In regards to college admissions, it was implemented as a way to increase the number of minorities accepted to universities, for reasons of giving them the opportunity for economic advancement by earning a degree. Over time President Kennedy’s “without regard” standards have given birth to policies that allow admissions officers to treat applicants “with regard” to race, which has been justified as expanding opportunities for the underprivileged and more often fostering diversity. Today the term “affirmative action” is a nice word for racial preferences.

Newspaper headlines and public forums demand educational reform with growing frequency. Race-sensitive admissions policies are often at the center of these debates. For example, according to the Los Angeles Times on March 21, 2001, the Los Angeles Community College district trustees are scheduled to vote for a resolution to support the University of California’s move to reinstate affirmative action in its admissions policies. This reinstatement has visible student support as seen in the March 15, 2001 rallies at the UC Regent’s meeting in which over 1,000 supporters of affirmative action came out to voice their opinion. This activity closely follows two other perceived victories for affirmative action proponents when two recent court

FACTS: A Michigan resident was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law school, even though she had a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on the LSAT. Barbara Grutter sued the school alleging that they had discriminated against her based on her race, which would be in violation of her constitutional rights. The University of Michigan Law School argued that there is a state interest to not have a “critical mass” of students of a given race; so that minorities do not feel isolated.

Robert D. Putnam et. al. and Abigail Thernstrom et. al. address affirmative action policies at colleges and universities as a broader social issue than just an individual getting into the university in their amicus curiae briefs. Thernstrom submitted her amici brief in favor of the petitioner, Abigail N. Fisher et. al., and Putnam submits his amici brief in favor of the respondents, The University of Texas et. al. The University of Texas chose not to admit Ms. Fisher, who was then a high school student. Ms. Fisher then sued the University, arguing that the use of race in applications and admission decisions to and of the University were discriminatory under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. These amici briefs were submitted

In 2003, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on a case challenging the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action program, ultimately declaring the scheme unconstitutional. The admission scheme was based generally on a 150 point scale system in which the Office of Admission assigned points based on a number of factors, including high school grades, standardized test scores, high school quality, alumni strength, and leadership; if a student fell within the 100-150 point range, he or she would be admitted to the school. However, an applicant automatically received a bonus of 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission if he or she possessed any one of the following “miscellaneous” factors: membership in an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority (which included African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans), attendance to a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or recruitment for athletics. And yet, even though the Court struck down this scheme by holding it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it did so on the basis that the University of Michigan scheme itself was too broad and thus discriminatory on its face; it did not strike down the notion of affirmative action in any way (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). In fact, the same day this ruling came down, the Supreme Court issued another ruling that upheld the University of Michigan Law

According to the 14th Amendment, The Equal Protection Clause forbids any state from making a law that infringes upon a person’s right (cite the Constitution). In other words, laws must treat a person as equally as others in similar situations. The Supreme Court discovered that the case hadn’t gone through the “strict scrutiny” test, so it was sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for further review. The Court of Appeals determined in a 2-1 verdict that the university was justified in its use of affirmative action (Affirmative Action Timeline). In the aftermath of the case, universities and medical schools now face complications justifying their affirmative action plans. While many people oppose affirmative action policies, there are experts who defend the

If institutions of higher education are to keep open minded campuses, they will have to combat beliefs of mismatching so that Affirmative Action(AA) can keep making a difference. Diversifying schools, giving minorities the opportunity of receiving a quality education, and combating stereotypes are three of the many ways AA has been making a difference. Additionally, institutions can advocate for the success AA has had in educating minorities by promoting and advertising fellow AA beneficiaries at their campuses. An example would be the advertisement of Sonia Sotomayor who attended Princeton University thanks to AA. Through AA institutions of higher education are able to alter the social construct of their campuses in order to make the world a more accepting place for change and difference. AA is currently being viewed by some as a negative force for minority youth applying to colleges due to

Bollinger [2003] , a 43-year-old white female applicant was rejected from the University of Michigan despite being in the 86th percentile nationally on the Law School Admissions Test. During the litigation, university officials admitted that Grutter would have been accepted into the school if she was African American, Hispanic, or Native American. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the law school’s policy to be legal in a five-to-four judgement because the justices believed it was “narrowly tailored” to create a diverse student body. The narrow tailoring system has been legalized but it has been put under heavy scrutiny. An admissions process can’t establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or have separate admissions tracks for different races. This loophole for affirmative action is inefficient

Regarding the case of affirmative action, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that as long as race in applications was used in an acceptable and unbiased way and prove that they are doing so, the courts cannot prevent schools from asking race in their applications. This has become a rising problem, not only at The University of Texas. In many Ivy Leagues, Asian-Americans with perfect, 2400 SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs get denied left and right purely because their quotas of Asian-American students have been met. With other colleges across America, whites have been discriminated against as schools feel they need more minority students to create a more diverse learning environment. This ruling impacts all of American students, knowing that their race could possibly impact getting into the school of their

Sander’s Stanford Law Review article he states “A student who gains special admission to a more elite school on partly nonacademic grounds is likely to struggle more, whether that student is a beneficiary of a racial preference, an athlete, or a “legacy” admit” (Richard H. Sander, Vol57.367). I disagree because it cannot be determined whether a student will struggle in school based on the way in which they were accepted. A student may excel in Law School although their undergraduate scores were not excellent. One is unable to score the performance of a student until they have completed courses within that school. When addressing this issue, I agree with Elizabeth S. Anderson’s stance in her New York University Law Review article. She states that eliminating affirmative action “causes ignorance of the different life circumstances and interests of marginalized groups, enabling policy decisions to be made that disregard the impact on those not present” (Elizabeth S. Anderson, Vol77.1195). When eliminating the policy, we are in essence eliminating the need for racial tolerance and

In 2003, the University of Michigan law school used affirmative action to admit students into the school. Doing so, the, “Grutter” decision attempted to ban affirmative action. Michigan just recently banned affirmative action, approximately a decade later, after the, “Grutter” case; Michigan officially banned affirmative action in 2014. Krauthammer states, “I believe the harm of affirmative action outweighs the good.” Krauthammer believes in the best of both worlds, affirmative action gives university campus diversity, but at the same time, during the admission process it does not help minorities, as Krauthammer calls it, “Racial

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, found that the admissions policy at the University of Michigan, which awarded points to applicants based on race, was flawed (O’Connor, 2003). The Supreme Court used the rules of evidence to ensure that fairness to all parties was occurring in the administration of the Affirmative Action law (Boss, 2015). The Supreme Court ruling endorsed Justice Powell in his statement, “not some specified percentage of a particular group [enrolled] merely because of its race or ethnic origin…that would be patently unconstitutional (O’Connor, 2003),” while at the same time agreeing that a specified percentage of diversity would promote learning outcomes and break down stereotypes (Boss, 2015). This doublethink used to make a landmark decision by the Supreme Court for the use of Affirmative Action in higher education admissions is what makes many people call this ruling into question (Boss,