Ap u.s. government & politics Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Practice frq #17 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hw discussion: affirmative action

Affirmative action

Defenses of Affirmative Action 1) Redress for Past Discrimination (Backward-looking ) 2) Promoting Integration/Diversity (Forward-looking) 3) Importance of Minority Role Models 4) Creating Public Perceptions of Equality

Criticisms of Affirmative Action 1) Government should be Race-Neutral; as a Moral matter 2) Affirmative Action measures are actually Harmful to Minorities (because of both Actual and Perceived Dependence) 3) Harm to Innocent individuals 4) Inefficiency in relation to a Meritocracy 5) Affirmative Action allows for racial politics/patronage 6) Racial divisiveness

The Court Searches for a Standard of Review Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) University of California’s Quota System for minority admissions is Struck Down Plurality saw the system as a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; prohibiting All racial discrimination Justice Powell was the Swing Vote: He Claimed to apply Strict Scrutiny (though this is debatable) Thought that Diversity was a Compelling Interest, but quarreled with the Particular System—said that Preferences would be allowable; but not Quotas Fullilove v. Kutznik (1980) 3 Justices advocate “Intermediate Scrutiny” in AA cases; but cannot muster a majority

Settling on “Strict Scrutiny” City of Richmond v. Croson (1989) Richmond’s system for awarding construction contracts to minority-owned businesses is Struck Down. (Suspicion of racial politics at play.) Majority of the Court votes to subject Affirmative Action programs to Strict Scrutiny Aderand Contractors, Inc. v. Pena (1995) Federal program offering Incentives to general contractors who award sub-contracts to minority businesses is Struck Down; under Strict Scrutiny O’Connor’s opinion makes a point of emphasizing that Strict Scrutiny is not “Fatal in Fact”, if the Compelling Interest/Necessary Means Test can really be satisfied Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bolliger (2003) Grutter—University of Michigan Law School’s flexible system of Considering race in admissions, in order to achieve a “Critical Mass” of minority students—to promote the Compelling Interest of Diversity—is Upheld. (This is the legacy of Powell’s swing vote.) Gratz—UM’s Undergraduate admissions program—a Fixed Point System, giving substantial bonuses to minority applicants, is Struck Down The distinction between the systems seems entirely Disingenuous Croson’s suggestion that Race-Neutral means must be attempted first is rejected in Grutter

Student Supreme Court: The Future of Affirmative Action The University of Texas’ undergraduate admission policy is that any student who graduates in the top 10% of his/her class at a Texas high school is automatically admitted This policy allows the University to admit a significant number of in-state minority students, who may have lower SAT scores than applicants from whiter, more affluent high schools but who are nonetheless top students at their particular schools Abigail Fisher, a white student, was denied admission to UT, despite the facts that her GPA and SAT scores fell within the middle 50% of the incoming UT class, and that she had graduated in the top 12% of her high school class. Fisher claims that the University’s admissions policy is a violation of Equal Protection. How will your Supreme Court decide this case? Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)

More on Fisher v. UT The Supreme Court initially remanded the case to the District Court in 2013, saying that the trial court had not properly applied the strict scrutiny test The case was re-argued at the Court in December 2015, and was decided in June 2016 In a 4-3 decision, the Court upheld the District Court’s holding that UT’s admissions policy survived the Strict Scrutiny test During the 2015 oral arguments, Justice Scalia had this to say: “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”

Homework Textbook, p. 166-169