College Admissions Is Unconstitutional

Although the issue of racial considerations in college admissions has evolved into very much an ethical debate, there have been many legal actions taken. The basis for all the actions is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that no state shall “deny to any

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

Board of Education(1954) case were Linda Brown, Oliver Brown, Robert Carter, Harold Fatzer, Jack Greenberg, Thurgood Marshall, Frank D. Reeves, Charles Scott, and John Scott("Teaching with documents:," ). Linda lived not to far from a local African American school, but her father had other plans for her and wanted her to go to an all white school so that she could obtain a better education. She was denied the opportunity, so her father teamed up with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People(NAACP). The 14th Amendment was violated when she was denied the right to go to the all white school(Collins). The 14th Amendment says that a states have to give citizen equal protection under all circumstances. Brown v. Board of Education was not immediately ruled. This case ruling was deliberately thought through and started the trend of desegregating schools years later. In the opinion they believed that segregating the white and black students was the right thing to do. Students would be “offended or intimidated” if they had peers of a different race. That was their way of saying that she should not be allowed to attend the all white school in her community. This case had no had no dissenting opinion. By the case beginning combined to other similar case it was brought to the Supreme Court. They overruled “separate but equal” because of the previous case Plessy v. Ferguson because it violate the 14th amendment("Brown v. Board," 2012).

On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas . State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment states; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to

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

In the 1954 trial Brown v. Board of Ed the supreme court majority agreed that “separate but equal” was shown to be inherently unequal. When several cases of African American students being denied acceptance into schools arrose, life in public schools changed forever. In a decision that supported by the fourteenth amendment, the U.S. supreme court ruled against the segregation of schools and allowed African Americans to attend white schools.

The Law School initially placed petitioner on a waiting list, but subsequently rejected her application. Petitioner alleged that respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. Petitioner further alleged that her application was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. The outcome of this ruling was the court ruled in favor that someone can be denied admission in preference of a different race that meet the same qualifications. The University of Michigan Law School was conducting highly individualized reviews of each applicant, and the courts determined that race was only one of the many factors they had considered for eligibility of their applicants (Grutter,

In the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) case, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, tried applying to medical school twice and was denied, even though his GPA, and test scores were better than others who were recently admitted. According to the court, they believed that “no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race”. Because of this, the shut down the system that discriminated against other races. In the Grutter case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational

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.

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

In the 1950s in Topeka, Kansas Linda Brown, a young African-American girl, had to walk many blocks and by a railroad track just to receive an education. With an all-white school located near her home, because of her race, her family had to walk the extra miles compared to her white neighbors. When her father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the local school, Linda was refused admission because she was African-American. The Brown v. Board of Education was a justified Supreme Court case because every person has the right to an education and the color of one’s skin should not prevent that, it provided safety and convenience for people, it was an advancement to a more diversified and unified United States, and it overrode another Supreme Court case. Not only did the Brown v. Board of Education case attain to what is on the 14th amendment, it plays a factor in initiating the

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.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007) are cases regarding the use of affirmative action programs in schools. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in universities is constitutional in certain circumstances, but racial quotas are unconstitutional. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is constitutional if race is treated as one factor among many, the purpose is to achieve a “diverse” classroom, and it is not an individualized review of the applicant. In Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education,

& 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).

This ruling brought about an end to segregation of students. It was no longer constitutional to separate students because of their race. Although, this was a very great and essential ruling, it only changed things in the educational system to a certain extent. I say to a certain extent because although that and other rulings have changed the system on the surface those rulings cannot and probably have not had an effect on every individual’s mindsets. Racism is