1. L EGAL I SSUES IN H IGHER E DUCATION : T HE S TUDENTS LS 517 Admissions & Diversity

2. D IVERSITY IN THE COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT Does diversity help the college experience? How?

3. U. S. S UPREME C OURT D ECISIONS Prior to the decisions discussed next, the United States Supreme Court had not weighed in on a college admission case for 25 years.

4. F ACTS IN THE G RUTTER V. B OLLINGER C ASE A white applicant who was denied admission sued the University of Michigan Law School claiming that she was discriminated against because of her race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USCS sec. 1981. The University of Michigan Law School considered race as a factor rather than to reach a quota when evaluating an applicant. The court recognized that the university has a compelling interest in a diverse student body and as long as an applicant was reviewed individually that race could be considered as a factor. Grutter v. Bollinnger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003). A white applicant who was denied admission sued the University of Michigan Law School claiming that she was discriminated against because of her race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USCS sec. 1981. The University of Michigan Law School considered race as a factor rather than to reach a quota when evaluating an applicant. The court recognized that the university has a compelling interest in a diverse student body and as long as an applicant was reviewed individually that race could be considered as a factor. Grutter v. Bollinnger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003).

5. G RUTTER V. B OLLINGER Decision: Narrowly–tailored use, by public law school, of race in admissions decisions, to further compelling interest in educational benefits of diverse student body held not to violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Decision: Narrowly–tailored use, by public law school, of race in admissions decisions, to further compelling interest in educational benefits of diverse student body held not to violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

6. F ACTS IN THE G RATZ V. B OLLINGER CASE In this second case, the court addressed the issue of whether University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy that automatically assigned points to minority applicants was unconstitutional. The court held that this point system which did not consider each applicant individually was not narrowly tailored because it unduly burdened individuals who were not members of that group and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003). In this second case, the court addressed the issue of whether University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy that automatically assigned points to minority applicants was unconstitutional. The court held that this point system which did not consider each applicant individually was not narrowly tailored because it unduly burdened individuals who were not members of that group and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003).

7. G RATZ V. B OLLINGER Decision: Michigan public university’s points- based undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awarded points to every “underrepresented minority” applicant held to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Decision: Michigan public university’s points- based undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awarded points to every “underrepresented minority” applicant held to violate Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

8. G OVERNMENT P ROTECTION C ONSIDERATIONS Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C.S sec. 1981 Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C.S sec. 1981

9. F OURTEENTH A MENDMENT The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that the government cannot discriminate based on race. Admission to a public university is considered a state benefit and is therefore subject to this guarantee. The Supreme Court has allowed very few exceptions to this important protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that the government cannot discriminate based on race. Admission to a public university is considered a state benefit and is therefore subject to this guarantee. The Supreme Court has allowed very few exceptions to this important protection.

10. P ARTIAL T EXT OF THE 14 TH A MENDMENT TO THE U.S. C ONSTITUTION (1 OF 5 S ECTIONS ) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause

11. T ITLE VI OF THE C IVIL R IGHTS A CT OF 1964 This provision prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Title VI applies to institutions that receive federal funds.

12. T ITLE VI OF THE C IVIL R IGHTS A CT OF 1964 Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. (Pub. L. 88-352, title VI, Sec. 601, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 252.)

13. U.S. D EPARTMENT OF J USTICE To assist federal agencies that provide financial assistance, the wide variety of recipients that receive such assistance, and the actual and potential beneficiaries of programs receiving federal assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual. The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal principles and standards. Additionally, the Department has published an Investigation Procedures Manual to give practical advice on how to investigate Title VI complaints. Source: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.p hp

14. T ITLE 42T ITLE 42 › C HAPTER 21 › S UBCHAPTER I › § 1981C HAPTER 21S UBCHAPTER I T ITLE 42T ITLE 42 › C HAPTER 21 › S UBCHAPTER I › § 1981C HAPTER 21S UBCHAPTER I This section of the code grants all people the same rights as “white citizens” to enter into a contract for educational services without discrimination. 42 U.S. Code Section ( §) 1981 This section of the code grants all people the same rights as “white citizens” to enter into a contract for educational services without discrimination. 42 U.S. Code Section ( §) 1981

15. 42 USC § 1981 - E QUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW (a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. (c) Protection against impairment The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.

16. O THER N OTABLE C ASES University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978): A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court – five justices -- held that while the UC program was unconstitutional because it involved a quota, it was lawful to take race into account in admissions. Hopwood v. State of Texas (1996): U.S. Supreme Court invalidated UT Law School’s affirmative action program. Held that the 14 th Amendment does not allow the court to favor classes of minorities. Court said no compelling justification that allows it to elevate some races over others, even to correct racial imbalance. Arizona v. Wilson (1975): court will not substitute its judgment or interfere in the academic programs of a university.