Race-Based Admissions Essay

Affirmative action in college admissions continues to be heatedly debated. In 2003, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity was a compelling interest for colleges to use race in admissions. In the amicus brief that the American Sociological Association et al. provided to the Supreme Court, sociological evidence was presented to elucidate the value of affirmative action. Yet in 2006, Proposal 2 was passed in Michigan to ban affirmative action in public education (Levitsky). Based on the information in the amicus brief, the correlation between race and socioeconomic status of the minorities, and the negative effects of banning affirmative action, admissions officers at the University of Michigan should consider

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

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

The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth

The Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger cases are two very unique cases on the subject of affirmative action in the United States. They bring forth a new perspective on the issue of using ethnicity to determine preferential treatment. On one hand the courts decided giving out a blanket point increases to all minorities was unconstitutional and did not serve the students interests. However, they did decide the use of race in admissions was permissible and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The courts say racial background may be used for admissions, but the individual must still be examined respectively. The cases also highlight the tension many whites may feel due to the pressures of having to compete with minorities for school or work. More white people may feel resent over

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.

The Court visited this topic in two separate cases: Grutter v Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger. Grutter examined admissions requirements for Michigan Law School, and Gratz examined Michigan undergraduate requirements. Once again, emphasis was placed on applying strict-scrutiny when race plays a factor in admissions. The court also established the need for “narrowly tailored” provisions when implementing such programs.

Board of Education. The Brown case encouraged the courts to use a different type of decision-making process, which included using the Federal Constitution as a way to impose detailed orders to implement the goals of desegregation, bussing, prison reform, environmental protection and many other factors of un-equality when it comes to African Americans (Merritt, 2005, p. 51). The Brown case was a gateway to potential for African Americans. Although it becomes a problem when the elitist, the people in the United States with the greater education and greater income, take on cases like that of Brown just for the profit. The elite tend to find anything going on that involves racism and inequality and turn it into a constitutional argument with an affirmative action so that they can make more money (Merritt, 2005). The elite do not so much care about the outcome or the racism and inequality, but only with what advantage it will be to them. Even though Brown v. Board of Education was right for their time, does not necessarily mean that it is right for this age in time. The elite make it difficult for African Americans to get full equality because they are constantly getting affirmative actions for actions that better benefit the majority and the elite. In Grutter (2003), the affirmative action for higher education the decision endorsed a labor-intensive admissions process that is most suitable for selective, elite colleges rather than large state universities (Merritt, 2005, p. 52). This is not helping the minority but rather hindering what Brown v. Board of Education was trying to

In this particular case I find the matter of Fisher v. Texas case I find that the University of Texas should not be able to continue on with their policy. Even though Abigail Fisher applied and was not apart of the top 10 percent of her class, she was still a very competitive applicant. Considering the fact that she was ranked 82 out of her senior class 674 she was still at the top 12 percent of her class. Her application surplused most of the other minority students admitted in the second round of admittance. Abigail Fisher's should have been considered a contender as part of the University of Texas’s freshman class of 2009. She believes she was well prepared and would be able to succeed at the University.

Before affirmative action, college admission was fair, and the slots were available to any student that wanted admitted to a private Ivy League college. In addition, those students’s that are applying would have to compete with other students academically to claim their spot. As Robert Barnes points out in his article "Justices to Hear Affirmative-Action Admissions Case" Washington Post, “Abigail Fisher [a non-minority], who said she was rejected by the university while less-qualified minorities were admitted, violating her constitutional rights” (Barnes paragraph 6). This means, because of affirmative action, if two students were competing academically the student with the dominant race would be admitted. Affirmative action was a supposed to take steps to end discrimination, yet it is reverse discrimination.

& 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).

Due to strong racial tensions, colleges believe admitting individuals in accordance to race is a positive liberal act, however affirmative action is evolving into quite a social strain. Colleges that endorse affirmative action are alleviating racial pressures based on college demographics but creating repercussions that are impacting all races and ages. If we continue burying the issues with affirmative action, we will not only be lessening the meaning of education but creating isolation between cultures.

Affirmative action has been a strong subject of discussion and debate for more than 30 years. Its use in college admissions has even been heard and ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Affirmative action is in essence, a policy or procedure developed by numerous institutions of higher learning to attempt to diversify their student bodies racially and by ethnicity. Looking closer at this procedure will display the advantages and disadvantages of affirmative action and college admissions.

The dilemma of affirmative action is in defining equal opportunities, especially to ethnicities who historically felt injustice. The famous U.S landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where Allan Bakke, a white man, was twice rejected by University of California Medical School at Davis, ruled that racial quotas “violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th

Affirmative action in the United States tends to focus on issues such as education and employment, specifically granting special consideration to racial minorities and women who have been historically excluded groups in America. Reports have shown that minorities and women have faced discrimination in schools and businesses for many years and this discrimination produced unfair advantages for whites and males in education and employment. The impetus toward affirmative action is redressing the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.