Affirmative Action Flashcards
Affirmative Action
Race-Specific Classifications Designed to Benefit Racial Minorities
Affirmative action is subject to strict scrutiny!
What are compelling governmental interests for strict scrutiny?
i. To Remedy Past Racial Discrimination - The entity or institution must itself make a specific showing of past racial discrimination in order to justify affirmative action program. See Croson; Bakke. The Court, in City of Richmond v. Croson, rejected the idea that remedying the effects of past societal discrimination could serve a compelling state interest.
ii. Interest in Diversity in Higher Education – An institution’s use of race is justified by a compelling state interest as a diverse student body will produce the following educational benefits:
1) A diverse student body will promote cross-racial understanding
2) Helps to break down racial stereotypes
3) Enables students to better understand persons of different races
4) American businesses have also made clear that the skills needed in today’s global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints.
UC-Davis V. Bakke (Set aside)
The UC-Davis Medical School reserved 16 of its 100 seats for racial minorities. This admission scheme makes race a determinative factor and thus is not narrowly tailored. A race-conscious selection program cannot use a quota system. Race cannot be determinative
Gratz V. Bollinger (Automatic points)
The University of Michigan ranked college applicants according to a 150 -point scale. An applicant automatically received a 25- point bonus if he or she possesses membership in an underrepresented minority group. This automatic distribution race is a decisive factor in the admissions decision – has the effect of a quota.
An educational institution or governmental entity must give individualized consideration to all applicants’. Race or ethnicity may only be considered as a “plus” factor in a particular applicant’s file; race cannot be determinative.
Grutter V. Bollinger (Highly individualized)
The University of Michigan Law School’s admission policy required each admissions officials to evaluate each applicant based upon the entire file – grades, LSAT score, personal statement, letters of recommendation. The policy also emphasized racial diversity. This policy was upheld as constitutional. The school engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each file. The school’s interest in obtaining more minority students does not transform the program into a quota.
Strict scrutiny imposes on the institution the burden of demonstrating that available, workable race-neutral alternatives would not advance the compelling governmental interest. This places a very heavy burden on schools and universities. Fisher v. University of Texas
Parents Involved V. Seattle
Holding: The programs employed by these districts are unconstitutional – do not survive strict scrutiny! They are not supported by a compelling governmental interest!
Past Racial Discrimination: The Seattle School District has not shown that they ever discriminated against blacks in the past, and the Jefferson County School District does not rely upon this interest in defending its present use of race in assigning students.
Educational Diversity: This interest is not relevant here, as it is unique to institutions of higher education.
Both school districts assert an interest in a racially diverse learning environment, however, this interest amount of nothing more than the goal of numerical racial balance between each district’ schools. The Court has consistently found such a purpose illegitimate.
