A while back in 1996, at the age of

while back in 1996, at the age of forty-three, Barbara Grutter decided a career
change was in order which means she was ready to start her career. She applied
to a nearby law school, the University of Michigan Law School, with the hopes and
dreams of becoming a health care attorney. She was a white woman but if that matter,
she had graduated from Michigan State University eighteen years before with a
3.81 grade point average. She had recently scored a 161 on the LSAT which is a good
score, placing her in the 86th percentile. She made it onto the Michigan waiting
list, but not its classrooms. All she wanted was go and get her career going.
Anyone should be able to do so. Unfortunately, the rejection initially
surprised her, but her surprise turned to “dismay” when she recalled a recent
article in a Detroit newspaper. This is all when that case basically took
place. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority
in a 5-4 decision, managed that the University of Michigan Law School had a convincing
interest in indorsing class diversity. Why the Racism? College admissions has infrequently
been just about assembly objective credentials the
court believed that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor
“underrepresented minority groups”. Defendants had classified against
her based on race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U. S. C. 1981; 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;
and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. No
one should be discriminated because its color. We are all equal. Like already
mentioned, The University of Michigan Law School followed an unofficial policy
that sought to achieve student body diversity by giving “substantial weight” to
the race of each applicant in making admissions decisions, in addition to its
consideration of other academic and non-academic variables. The district
court thought that the Law School’s use of race in its admissions policy was illegal,
but the court of petitions upturned. The United States Supreme Court granted
certiorari. The participants largely conceded the educational benefits
of a diverse student body, but declared that those benefits were unrelated because
the use of race violated the constitution. The intervenors supported the
University in its view that a diverse educational environment was beneficial
for all students and was a compelling interest.  In
retrogressive, the Court of Appeals detained that Justice Powell’s belief in
Regents of the 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 appellate court also forbidden the
district court’s finding that the Law School’s “critical mass” was
the useful equal of a ration. 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 constitutional provision issues Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the
Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a
compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a
diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts
highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is
based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures
that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered
alongside race. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that
may favor “underrepresented minority groups,” but that also
considered many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every
applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been
unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. University
of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for
being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. It
was felt that they were ruling the state adding points due to race in the
university admission point system was unconstitutional. The ruling was against
the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admission. Grutter vs. Bollinger was
a ruling that upheld the Gratz vs. Bollinger ruling. Violated the Equal
Protection Clause. What is an affirmative action? Affirmative action is a
policy or program that gives preferences to minorities in jobs or higher
education. John F. Kennedy started the idea of Affirmative action. Now to the
question, is affirmative action still necessary for guaranteeing equal
access to educational opportunities at elite universities and graduate schools?
Should admissions decisions be based solely on academic criteria and merit? In
my opinion, I think that affirmative action is not necessary anymore. Now a
day’s education by the end of the day its what matters. Universities now look
at high scores exam with out caring the race or diversity of everyone who wants
to continue their careers. We are all humans and we should be treated equally
with no matter of racism. Yes, admissions should be based solely on academic
criteria and merit. Litigation and political
battles about affirmative action tend to focus on undergraduate or professional
school admissions, which are supervised by admissions professionals.