Affirmative action SC case studies Flashcards
Describe what the Brown v Board of Education of Topeka case was about
In the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson case, the SC ruled that segregated facilities were constitutional provided they were equal in quality, thus creating the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine. This case originated when Oliver Brown’s daughter was prevented entry to the school closest to her home, instead requiring her to take a bus journey to an all black further away. A Feeral District Court ruled against Brown on the basis of Plessy v Ferguson
Ruling
The SC ruled 9-0 that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal and so violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
Significance
The case overturned the separate but equal doctrine and ruled that state laws establishing racial segregation in schools were unconstitutional. This landmark case was a major victory for the civil rights movement. The ruling did not spell out how desegregation would be achieved, stating only schools should be desegregated schools ‘with all deliberate speed’. It took years for states in the deep south to be fully desegregated. In 1957, Eisenhower had to order the National Guard to intervene to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Arkansas were desegregated
Type of case
The court overturned state policy and one of its own previous decisions
Explain what the Regents of the University of California v Bakke (1978) was about
After schools were desegregated following Brown, selective colleges and graduate programmes, and the professions related to them were still mostly white because most blacks had attended inferior schools and so were less likely to succeed in the admissions process. In the 1960s, AA programmes began favouring blacks in light of their history of discrimination. The University of California began such a programme. Candidates considered to be disadvantaged were reviewed by a special admissions committee. A number of medicine places were set aside for minority students approved of by the committee. After Allan Paul Bakke was rejected twice by the uni, he challenged the constitutionality of its AA programme. The California SC struck down the programme as a violation of the rights of white applicants, and ordered that Bakke by admitted. The SC then heard the case
Ruling
A 5-4 majority ruled that AA in general was constitutional. However, the unis use of quotas (reserving 16% of places) was struck down as unconstitutional because white students could only apply for 84% of seats, whereas black students could theoretically apply for 100%
Significance
The programme was ended and Bakke was admitted into the class. The case made clear that quotas were unconstitutional and that AA programmes had to be less restrictive – for instance, by making race one of several factors in admissions decisions
What was the Adarand Constructors v Pena (1995) case about?
AC lost a contract to a competitor because of federal incentives for employing disadvantaged businesses. Adarand filed a lawsuit, claiming that this was unconstitutional. The SC had to rule on whether the presumption of disadvantage on the basis of race alone, as well favoured treatment in light of this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment
Ruling
The SC found that AA programmes must be analysed by the court under a standard of strict scrutiny
Significance
Strict scrutiny is the highest level of SC review, and means that AA programmes are only constitutional if they are ‘narrowly tailored’ measures for the purposes of ‘compelling’ government interests
What was the Gratz v Bollinger case about?
Admissions to the Uni of Michigan were based on a points programme, with 100 points required for a place. Underrepresented ethnic groups were given an automatic 20 point bonus. Jennifer Gratz applied for literature, science and the arts in 1995 but was rejected. She sued, claiming that her 14th amendment right to equal protection had been violated, and claiming racial discrimination
Ruling
The SC, consistent with the Bakke case, decided 6-3 that the policy did violate the 14th amendment because of the automatic 20 point increase to racial minorities. They said that the system was too ‘mechanistic’ because it did not make individual determinations
What was the Grutter v Bollinger 2003 case about?
An applicant to the Uni of Michigan’s law school, Barbara Grutter, claimed that she had been rejected because the school gave minority applicants a greater chance at applications. The school admitted that its admissions process favoured certain minority students but argued that there was a compelling state interest to encourage a balance of ethnic groups in the student body to promote a diverse education environment. The federal district court ruled the admissions process unconstitutional because they were ‘practically indistinguishable’ from a quota system. The 6th circuit court of appeals reversed this decision, citing the 1978 Bakke decision that AA could be used to advance the compelling interest of promoting diversity
Ruling
The SC liberals ruled 5-4 in favour of the uni, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stating that the constitution ‘does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the education benefits that flow from having a diverse student body’
Significance
Interestingly, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor the court expects that such programmes will no longer be necessary to further such an interest 25 years from now. Clarence Thomas disagreed, saying that the programme was ‘illegal now’. This decision confirmed the idea that unis are allowed to use race as a plus factor in making admissions decisions. Although race can not be the sole factor, it can be a factor along with other individualised factors within a narrowly tailored programme
What was the Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District (2007) about?
The issue here was the school districts assigning students to schools for the purposes of achieving racial balance. The system used racial quotas of white and minority representation because the racially segregated housing patterns made in Seattle meant that this would not have happened otherwise
Ruling
Kennedy and the conservatives ruled 5-4 against the school districts. The court recognised that seeking diversity in schools is a legitimate interest, but Chief Justice Roberts wrote that: ‘simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal does not mean that they are free to racially discriminate to achieve it. The programmes were not considered to be ‘narrowly tailored’. Roberts also wrote that: ‘the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race
What was the Fisher v University of Texas (2013 and 2016) case about?
Abigail Fisher applied to the University of Texas in 2008 and was rejected. She claimed that the university had discriminated against her on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. The University of Texas accepted students who finished in the top 10% of their graduating class, regardless of race. Applicants who failed to be admitted this way could still be admitted through tests based on talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances and race. The Federal District Court ruled for the University of Texas, finding that its admissions plans met the strict standards laid out in Bollinger. The 5th circuit court of appeals agreed with this ruling, and Fisher appealed to the SC. There were concerns that if, in judging this case, the court overruled Bollinger, affirmative action in universities would end and the number of black and Hispanic students entering university would fall
Ruling
The SC ruled 7-1 that the 5th circuit court of appeals had failed to properly apply the strict scrutiny test. As a result the court remanded the judgement, meaning that it was sent back to the 5th circuit court of appeals to be reconsidered. The 5th circuit court of appeals again ruled in support of the university, and Fisher again appealed to the SC. The court ruled 4-3 in favour of the university. The court wrote that the Texas 10% plan was a unique policy, but also noted that the university should regularly review data and tailor its approach in light of changing circumstances, ensuring that race plays no greater role than is necessary to achieve its interests
Significance
The ruling upheld the university’s race conscious policies. However, it reaffirmed that this was to be done for the purposes of promoting diversity and multiculturalism, rather than in order to provide just for past racial discrimination. The case is an example of the great controversy surrounding affirmative action – that ending racial segregation is brought about by what some people regard as racial discrimination
