Virginia V. Texas, The Supreme Court Upheld The Constitutionality Of Special Admissions Programs

1105 Words5 Pages
In Fisher v Texas, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of special admissions programs; but this could only be done under strict judicial scrutiny, and with narrowly tailored provisions. Two separate questions stem from this: What does “narrowly tailoring” mean in light of the 14th Amendment? And how can other universities implement admission standards that are constitutionally permissible? Short Answer Grutter and Gratz established that race could be a factor in the admissions process. But it must pass strict-scrutiny. At first blush, this might appear discriminatory. But if there is a compelling government interest, then it is not covered by the Equal Protection Clause, in the Fourteenth Amendment. So to pass strict-scrutiny…show more content…
This is because schools have a rational reason for excluding certain individuals. It cannot accept every student, so schools must have the ability to sift through applicants. For example, test scores, GPA, extracurricular activities, and the like, can be used when considering an applicants file. In short, this in no way perverts or violates the Equal Protection Clause; schools have a reasonable interest in denying certain applicants because they cannot admit every student that applies. Discussion of Cases: How the Court Applied Strict-Scrutiny When a University implements special admissions requirements, like race and ethnicity, the Court called “ for the most exacting judicial scrutiny” when reviewing cases of this nature (Bakke v U.S.). For this, the rational-basis test is faulty. Strict-scrutiny is prescribed to examine race cases. 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. In Grutter, the court re-emphasized the fact that cultivating a diverse student body was a compelling state interest. And according to Chief Justice Rehnquist, “student body diversity is a compelling state
Get Access