The Case Of Grutter V. Bollinger

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

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

Most African Americans have faced many injustices, but one court case that can be considered as a major win is Brown versus Board of Education (1965). The case was about how a girl named Linda Brown not being allowed to attend an all-white elementary school. The jurors debated on the fourteen amendment and on the term “separate but equal” (“Brown v. Board of Education”). After many discussions and debate later, court case decision not only gave justice to the little girl, but also to the case regarding Jim Crow like Plessy versus Ferguson that faced injustice of the “separate but equal” which in 1965, “the Supreme Court produced a unanimous decision to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson” (“Separate Is Not Equal - Brown v. Board of Education”). The case of Brown versus the Board of education was one of the most significant cases because this case was the stepping stone to the justices of previous cases that were ruled against for the fourteen amendment for many minorities. This case shows that peoples’ view point are slowly changing even when discrimination is prevalent; this was not the first time minorities wanted justice for their kids to attend diverse

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

The case of Bakke v. Regents of California was one in which Bakke, a white applicant to the University, was denied acceptance even though people of minority

In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) was a highly divided decision, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of race in admission decisions on a time-limited basis to further the educational benefits that flow from a diverse

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

In 1994, a new case, Hopwood v. The University of Texas, was ruled on by the circuit court and interpreted in such a manner as to effectively end affirmative action in higher education for the states of Texas and Louisiana. The plaintiffs for the case were four applicants to the law school of The University of Texas, each of whom were denied admission while minority applicants with lower

She claimed that the reason for this was because of the affirmative action policy that the university had in place. The case gained traction and was taken to the Supreme Court. This also sparked up a national conversation about affirmative action throughout the nation. An article in the New York Times had quotes from some of the Justices stating that it is necessary to have affirmative action that way the classroom can stay diversified (Liptak

In the actuality of the cases presented from the plaintiffs, they sought aid from the court to grant admission for segregated children to be able to attend the same school as whites. The initial segregation in the Plessy vs. Fergson case stated that the “separate but equal” doctrine was in effect since the different races were given equal facilities even if they were separate. This rule was pointed out by the plaintiffs in the Brown vs. Board of Education case where they argued that this separation was not equal at all and stripped the segregated students their protection of the law. And of course, the importance of this argument forced the Court to take jurisdiction. Several re-arguments were made on the case and even though it shined a great light

It has been argued that Fisher III neither provides any substantive additions to Equal Protection Clause (EPC) Jurisprudence, nor any guidance to lower courts how to apply Grutter and determine whether a race-based admissions program is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Danielle Holley-Walker, in her article published in winter of 2014, explores the impact Fisher III has on race-conscious admissions programs, and argues that Fisher III enhances the strict scrutiny analysis, especially when compared to Grutter. Moreover, she argues “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent meaningfully highlights one of the most pernicious flaws in the current Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which is that strict scrutiny standard encourages universities to make their admissions process opaque instead of transparent and that there are many benefits that flow from having a transparent, race-conscious admissions program.”

& 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).

Gratz v. Bollinger, was the case that determined the legitimacy of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both applied for and were denied admission to the University of Michigan between 1995 and 1997. At the time, to be accepted to the university a candidate had to have a score of 100 points with minorities receiving automatic 20 points (Gratz v. Bollinger 12). In 2003, The Supreme Court ruled University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote the University's point system “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" (GRATZ V. BOLLINGER 3). Grutter v. Bollinger, was the 2003 case where the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. Barbara Grutter, who was rejected from the school, filed the suit believing that she had been discriminated against because of her race. In a five-to-four majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the law school could use race as a factor without violating the 14th Amendment. Justice O'Connor, wrote that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body" (GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER 2).In 2006, Proposal 2 also known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was passed which means Affirmative Action was banned from all public institutions. The constitutionality of the amendment was challenged in federal court leading to the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2014 upheld Proposal 2 saying "that there is no authority...for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether

“The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments tomorrow in Fisher v. University of Texas, a constitutional challenge to race-conscious admission policies at colleges and universities.” (Kerby, Sophia). In the event that the Court bars the utilization of race in inductions, it will eradicate 50 years of advancement and debilitate colleges' endeavors to make school facilities more various and comprehensive. It will make