Law of Higher Ed Cont. Flashcards
Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin (2013)
Affirmative action policies must be narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity and would need to meet the standards of strict scrutiny in the future.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014)
US Supreme Court upheld a voter approved amendment to the constitution banning the use of affirmative action in Michigan.
Hopwood v. Texas (1992)
Three white applicants to University of Texas school of law were denied admission. The schools admission policies with use of affirmative action were found to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Affirmative action was seen as not beneficial in any form and did not allow its use in the admission policy at all.
Gratz v. Bollinger
In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan. She was denied admission. The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.” In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups. The court ruled against U of Michigan and stated that granting points for each student of an ethnic minority is unconstitutional.
Grutter v. Bollinger
In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a “compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body.”
Does the University of Michigan Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O’Connor wrote, “in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School’s race- conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.”
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for “qualified” minorities, as part of the university’s affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke’s qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke’s applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.
The court ruled that race is considered permissible in college admission decisions, but use of quotas was not.
