The Law Of Admissions Standards

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

Is affirmative action in higher education needed? This question provokes a myriad of emotions. Is affirmative action antiquated and unneeded in 21st century America? Or are the racial boundaries of this country’s ancestors still in effect? America’s Declaration of Independence states, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” yet quotas, check marks, and plus factors give minority students advantages in the admission processes of the country’s universities and colleges (NARA).

Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).

Fisher’s weakest argument was that racial considerations were no longer necessary because the university had already achieved its critical mass; her argument would have been stronger if she asked the school to explain the differences between critical mass and quota. The Defendants justified their admissions process by arguing that their use of race was “narrowly tailored” to achieve a diverse student population, and their racial acknowledgement is “not about quotas or targets, but about its focus upon individuals” (Fisher v. University of Texas). However, the school never explained the difference between “critical mass” and

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

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.

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.”

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.

The Supreme Court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, skirts around the issue of violating the Equal Protection Clause through affirmative action by stating that the goal of affirmative action is not about repaying for the United States’ history toward racial minorities, but instead about achieving classroom diversity. While the Supreme Court argues that classroom diversity is beneficial in a learning environment, this claim is unproven. Had the court stated outright that the goal of an affirmative action plan was to repay for past wrongs, it would have been struck down in violation of strict scrutiny, which ensures that there is no “racial prejudice” in a law by it being “specifically and narrow framed” or tailored (Grutter 990). Narrowly tailored affirmative

In Fisher V. University of Texas (2013), the Court finally established how affirmative action and racially-based university admission policies should be legally reviewed. Prior to this case, courts often purported how specific policies were constitutionally permissible or not, but they never fully established how courts should review these policies in the first place. In Gratz, the Court determined quota systems for different racial or ethnic identities is never acceptable under the Equal Protection Clause, while in Grutter the court ruled that utilizing race as a factor in a holistic process is acceptable. However, the court in Fisher concretely confirmed in what vein should racially-affected admission policy be judged in terms of constitutionality. Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion defined the landscape in which that admissions policy should be reviewed, and placed a significantly higher burden on universities to prove the constitutionality of their policy, forcing universities to invest more in research into diversity in their campus and to reshape the way they frame diversity

In Grutter, the Court reaffirmed the “plus factor” approach that Bakker embraced by upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy, which strived to “enroll a ‘critical mass' of minority students,’” while disavowing attempts to “assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.” Writing for the majority, Justice O’Connor emphasized the educational benefits of diversity, explaining that “classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting” when students have “the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.” However, and relying on Bakke, Justice O’Connor noted that diversity encompass “a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.” Thus, although race may be considered “a ‘plus' in a particular applicant's file,” it “is only one element in a range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student

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.).

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a

Today, the United States illustrates many circumstances of race in which a group of a given descent is discriminated against solely based on their physical appearance, despite the high demand for “equality.” Linda Darling-Hammond states that “the color line divides [populations] still… even in the 21st century” and will continue to divide people in future centuries (“Unequal Opportunity: Race and Education”). Some debacles of race include those of a minority population being targeted, however the opposite is true for those trying to become a part of a college or university. In the college application process, the federal government requires the administrators to ask which race the applicant is from on their college application, in order to

& 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).