Jessica lachlan
What impact have court rulings had on affirmative action?
The first case to mention would be the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that
providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of
the majority. The arguments was that affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse
discrimination. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though there were
minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that
judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Quotas are a set aside programme to benefit previously
disadvantaged minorities in higher education and employment by which a certain
percentage of places is reserved for previously disadvantaged group. The Supreme Court
ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible
quotas was not. Because of this case quotas or preference systems cannot be there are no
longer allowed to be quotas stating how racial minorities should be used by state or local
governments without first showing that such rules are needed to correct an actual past or
present pattern of discrimination.
The Grutter V. Bollinger case was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court
upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.
The Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, alleging that the law school had
discriminated against her on the basis of race and that she was rejected because the Law
School uses 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. The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a
"critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that
sometime in the future, perhaps in twenty-five years. The decision implied that affirmative
action should not be allowed to be permanent and that eventually a “colorblind” policy
should be implemented. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial
preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
Gratz v. Bollinger was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of
Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. The University of Michigan
used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission.
The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect
SAT score was worth 12 points. In a 6–3 decision the Court, ruled the University's point
system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented
minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually
assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional. This case helps prevent affirmative action in
the future because no longer can university’s positively discriminate racial minorities by
making their application automatically stronger.
What impact have court rulings had on affirmative action?
The first case to mention would be the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that
providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of
the majority. The arguments was that affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse
discrimination. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected twice even though there were
minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that
judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Quotas are a set aside programme to benefit previously
disadvantaged minorities in higher education and employment by which a certain
percentage of places is reserved for previously disadvantaged group. The Supreme Court
ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible
quotas was not. Because of this case quotas or preference systems cannot be there are no
longer allowed to be quotas stating how racial minorities should be used by state or local
governments without first showing that such rules are needed to correct an actual past or
present pattern of discrimination.
The Grutter V. Bollinger case was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court
upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.
The Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, alleging that the law school had
discriminated against her on the basis of race and that she was rejected because the Law
School uses 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. The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a
"critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that
sometime in the future, perhaps in twenty-five years. The decision implied that affirmative
action should not be allowed to be permanent and that eventually a “colorblind” policy
should be implemented. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial
preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.
Gratz v. Bollinger was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of
Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. The University of Michigan
used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission.
The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect
SAT score was worth 12 points. In a 6–3 decision the Court, ruled the University's point
system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented
minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually
assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional. This case helps prevent affirmative action in
the future because no longer can university’s positively discriminate racial minorities by
making their application automatically stronger.
