SUPREME COURT CASES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

WHAT IS IT?? Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group. Usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. BAKKE (1978) Allan Bakke, a 35 year old white man, applied twice for admission to the University of California Medical School. He was rejected both times. The school reserved 16 places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program. 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.

QUESTION Did the University of California violate the 14 th Amendment equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

THE DECISION Medical school racially discriminated against whites- excluded them from the 16 out of 100 seats based on race alone. Court decided that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible.

GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER (2002) Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. 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." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one- sent to Supreme Court

QUESTION 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 ?

THE DECISION No. 5-4 decision University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The Law School conducts “highly individualized review” of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race.

GRATZ V. BOLLINGER In 1995, both Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Both were denied admission. The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions. Uses point system that serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus.

QUESTION Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

THE DECISION Yes does violate. In a 6-3 opinion the Court held that the University’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates both the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. The point system that rate students and awards additional points to “underrepresented minorities,” had to be modified. The undergraduate program, unlike the law school's, did not provide the " individualized consideration " of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.

PARENTS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT The Seattle School District allowed students to apply to any high school in the District. Since certain schools often became oversubscribed when too many students chose them as their first choice, the District used a system of tiebreakers to decide which students would be admitted to the popular schools. The second most important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. Parents sued arguing racial tie breaker.

QUESTION 1) Do the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger apply to public high school students? 2) Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools? 3) Does a school district that normally permits a student to attend the high school of her choice violate the Equal Protection Clause by denying the student admission because of her race in an effort to achieve a desired racial balance?

THE DECISION The District's racial tiebreaker plan was found unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 th Amendment. The Court acknowledged that it had previously held that racial diversity can be a compelling government interest in university admissions, but it ruled that "[t]he present cases are not governed by Grutter.“ The District's plan involved no individualized consideration of students, and it employed a very limited notion of diversity ("white" and "non-white").

THE DEBATE CONTINUES Many debate whether Affirmative Action has helped certain students while denying others. HW: Read arguments for both sides. Using court cases from today pick a side. Write a paragraph response using notes and court cases to support your opinion!!!