The earlier Bakke case was seen as binding precedent establishing that fostering diversity was a “compelling state interest.” The Grutter Court similarly claimed that, in light of Bakke, the “Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a potential ‘plus’ factor.” Viewing a candidate’s race as a “bonus” was allowed, but using race as the predominant criteria for admission was not. She claimed, in the words of the Court, that she was rejected because the law school “used race as a ‘predominant’ factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials” from disfavored racial groups such as whites and Asians. After being denied admission to University of Michigan Law School, white student Barbara Grutter sued the school, alleging it discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2003, the Court in Grutter upheld affirmative action in academic admissions, saying race can indeed be considered in admissions decisions alongside things like tests and grades. The essential question, then, is this: can race continue to be a factor in university admissions? First, can race be a factor in admissions? Second, has Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants? And third, quoting the Court, can a university “reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity?”
University of North Carolina, pose three questions. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. The two cases the Court might use to overturn Grutter, Students for Fair Admissions Inc. Bollinger and decides whether “race-conscious” admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are lawful.
Wade, watch this current term as the Court considers overturning Grutter v. If you thought the Supreme Court threw up some dust overturning Roe v.
0 kommentar(er)
