Grutter V. Bollinger 2003 University Of Michigan Law School Case Study

Rev. Yun offered advice and discussed spiritual matters with Ms. Borzoi; therefore, Rev. Yun was acting in her professional capacity as a senior pastor at BMCC.

Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash., 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999)

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

The Supreme Court case of Gibbons v. Ogden was one of the many cases dealing with the compelling issue of Federalism (the separation of power between the Federal Government and the states.) It is one of the more disputable cases in determining whether the government exceeded their bounds or if they were simply following the constitution and their delegated powers.

Procedural History: The cases arose from the married couple whom were given advice from the Executive Director. The Executive Director of Planned Parenthood gave the information and advice was based on how to prevent conception along with material to be used by the wife.

The cases of Gratz/Grutter v. Bollinger are two cases alleging that the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School discriminated against students who applied for admission because of their race(Tuttle, Kevin).The university of michigan receives a high volume of applicants each year(Tuttle, Kevin).to help the admissions decisions the university has a point system which is out of 100 points(O’Connor).a student that is from an underrepresented group automatically receives 20 points towards their overall score (O’Connor).the issue is Whether the School’s admission policy to automatically grant 20 out of 100 points to students of a minority ethnicity is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution(Boddie, Elise c.).The Bush administration had supported the plaintiffs in both cases, and critics regarded the verdicts as a defeat for its conservative agenda(Boddie, Elise c.).both of these cases are unique and different in there own way(Boddie, Elise c.).

Reason: The Equal Protection clause does not say that a school making their student population diverse is unconstitutional.

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan asserted that their policy was designed to promote diversity and ensure “unique contributions to the character of the Law School” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The University of Michigan maintained that they did not employ racial quotas rather they systemically focused on improving diversity in each entering class. The University associated their policy to Regents of Uni. Cal. v. Bakke (1978) which addressed race in university admission decisions.

ISSUE: Can a public university or institution for higher learner tailor their admission of applicants by race to balance diversity within their student body?

The question of making admission decisions on the basis of race had been debated before in the Supreme Court, in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. The University of Michigan Law School had denied the admission of Barbara Grutter, a white female. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan, because no single factor eliminated a certain applicant from being denied admission and race was seen as a factor that would help diversity in the law school. This case was referred to in the discussion phase of this hearing.

Some of the ways that the Supreme Court address the issue of privacy is within the home. Along with the 1st, 3rdm 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments that give citizens right to privacy. In Griswold v Connecticut the Majority opinion written by Justice Douglas talks about penumbral rights in the shadow of the constitution. In the 1st the right to assembly, 3rd the right to refuse quartering soldiers within the home, the 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th amendment protects citizens by allowing them to not self-incriminate. With the Griswold v Connecticut case the Court ruled that a couple had the right to privacy when using contraceptives. Justice Goldberg concurred in the case on the Fundamental Rights theory.

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the Court and wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Even though the Court had previously ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, they ruled that this case was not governed by Grutter. The District’s goal to prevent racial imbalance was not a constitutionally legitimate use of race according to the Court’s standards. The Court held that the District’s tiebreaker plan was not targeted toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity. Instead, they said it was actually targeted toward demographic goals. Justice Kennedy agreed that the District’s use of race was unconstitutional, but in a separate opinion he stressed that public schools may sometimes consider race to ensure equal educational

The Fourth Amendment protects the police from gaining exorbitant power. However, in Florida v. Bostick and Ohio v. Robinette, the Supreme Court granted the police disproportionate power by granting them the right to conduct warrantless seizures and searches without reason. The rulings of both cases were in emulation of the Fourth Amendment rights.

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.

Colleges might also look at creating a more diverse campus as a way to prevent those lawsuits, because if the media starts getting reports of there being an overflow of white students at a college or university ran by a white man or woman, they look dubious, and just racist, but if they start accepting more minorities into their school, spreading a little color over the campus, in a sense, then they look more appealing to applicants who want that diversity in their dream school. Plus it shows good when schools are being taken to court for discrimination. If they show the statistics, the numbers, of the racial diversity, then that builds on their case. If they show a pie chart and 75% of the chart is green, and green represents white for example, then that makes the school look bad, ultimately allowing a jury to see a possibility of discrimination, but if it’s near equal for minorities and whites, etc. , then it’s good for the school. Making their case more believable.