Grutter v. Bollinger

Affirmative action in college admissions continues to be heatedly debated. In 2003, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity was a compelling interest for colleges to use race in admissions. In the amicus brief that the American Sociological Association et al. provided to the Supreme Court, sociological evidence was presented to elucidate the value of affirmative action. Yet in 2006, Proposal 2 was passed in Michigan to ban affirmative action in public education (Levitsky)

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, with the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, found that the admissions policy at the University of Michigan, which awarded points to applicants based on race, was flawed (O’Connor, 2003). The Supreme Court used the rules of evidence to ensure that fairness to all parties was occurring

The 14th Amendment played a large role in the way we perceive today’s society. Being that the beginning of the 14th Amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”, the intent of the 14th Amendment is to stop the granting of automatic citizenship of new born babies in the United States. Those babies were born by illegal mothers which deems them to be considered

Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights In 1787, when the constitution began the induction of rights to all Americans. As people we have these benefit due to our founding fathers. With the 10 different amendments each reaching out to a different citizen of the United States. These can be considered our civil rights. Civil rights are the rights the citizens withhold to political and social equality and or freedom. The rights of all Americans are crucial to a functioning country. With civil rights there comes

depending on who is asked. In a poll done by Pew Research in 2009, it was found that 59% of African Americans, 53% of Hispanics, and 22% of whites agree that minorities should get preferential treatment (Stewart). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) called into question the application of the 14th amendment in rejecting Allan Bakke admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Allan Bakke was a 35 year old white man who was denied

sector was “not narrowly tailored to any goal, except perhaps outright racial balancing.” (City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 1989) This of course, means that the program did not meet the requirements to pass under strict scrutiny. The policy, lacking a compelling government interest, also “failed to consider race-neutral measures” that would help them achieve their goal. (City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 1989) Justification for Richmond’s policy was explained as a tool that helps reconcile for

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Fifth Circuit, 133 S. CT. 2411 (2013) The University of Texas (UT) understood the importance of diversity; therefore, tried numerous race-neutral strategies to get minorities into their school. Sadly, Texas suffered from segregation at this time (1993), so not many minorities were going to UT. In consequence, Texas legislature passed a race-neutral system (1997) where the top 10% of a high school graduating class would be automatically admitted into UT. Even

The concept of rights and liberties worldwide is a luxury that all countries do not have and are not given to them. In America the people have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that enumerate their inalienable rights. In the State of Texas there is also a constitution and a Bill of Rights for the people. One of the most important rights in the Texas Bill of Rights in the constitution is Article 1 Section 3 and 3a titled Equality and Equality Under the Law. There are differences between civil

Constitutional Rights In 2003, the United States Supreme Court will hear two affirmative action cases. Each is dealing with the actions of the admissions office of the University of Michigan. The cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, have been called "this generation's Brown v. Board of Education." (Montoya.) These cases have much hanging in their mists, "The outcome of … affirmative action cases will determine whether our society moves forward towards greater equality or backwards

source of contentious public debate and legal battles since the policy’s inception in the 1960s (e.g., Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, 1996; Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003; Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978) (Bernhard et al., 2013). One of the first affirmative action cases that were brought to the Supreme Court was in the Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university’s use racial quotas in its admissions process was unconstitutional