Grutter v. Bollinger

Since the election of President Barack Obama, many people have adopted the idea that the nation has progressed and there are even some people who trust that it is now time to halt school, housing, and employment affirmative action policies. Sadly though, many people are unaware of the fact that there has been an upsurge in hate crimes and racial profiling. Because of this, there is a chasm between black and white success in schools, career prospects, housing, and quality of health care (Sadler 1140-1141)

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

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it did so on the basis that the University of Michigan scheme itself was too broad and thus discriminatory on its face; it did not strike down the notion of affirmative action in any way (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). In fact, the same day this ruling came down, the Supreme Court issued another ruling that upheld the University of Michigan Law

Name, Legal Citation, and Level of Court Gratz Et Al. V. Bollinger Et Al., 539 US 244 (2003). The case was originally heard in the Federal District Court, and finally decided in the Rehnquist Court. Case Brief (3,4,5) Petitioner, Jennifer Gratz, who is Caucasian Michigan resident, applied for admission for the fall 1995 semester, to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) as residents of the State of Michigan. Gratz was told that, despite being very much

factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). There are two recent lawsuits from 2003 that brought to the forefront college admissions using race; these include Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (Bowman, 2013). Both cases involve the University of Michigan. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court sided with the university stating that their admissions office can continue to use race-based initiatives in fostering an education benefit to the students (Bowman, 2013).

factor—it’s the one hairy, delicate topic that people tiptoe around—and that’s the race factor. Everyone cringes when the word “race” begins floating around. So, the Supreme Court gave universities a blueprint for creating admissions standards: Grutter v Bollinger

programs such as affirmative action. It should instead adopt a new system based on many more factors than a person’s ethnic background. Decades ago the issue was over creating equal opportunities for all people regardless of ethnic background. The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark case for the civil rights movement. It solidified the rights of the minority to receive the same access to education as the white student. In modern society

In 1954, the case Brown v. Board of Education dealt with the Brown family feeling like the education system was violating the Fourteenth Amendment having separate schools based on race/color. The court appealed their case and decided that having “separate but equal” schools was

Throughout its earlier beginnings, Affirmative action was created by Universities who were obliged to improve the educational opportunities of groups who have experienced prejudice in the past, however defies the basis of American civilization. The leading figures in American Independence battled adversity to create an equal chance for all people. “Martin Luther King, Jr., said in 1963, ‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold those

Legal Entanglement: Fisher v. University of Texas In 2008, Abigail Fisher, claimed that her Fourteenth Amendment civil rights had been violated by the University of Texas. Abigail Fisher, the plaintiff, believed that race was a discriminatory factor regarding her non-admission to the university. The admission policy of the University of Texas had been developed due to preceding cases and was considered narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of University of Texas due to affirmative action