Awhile back in 1996, at the age of forty-three, Barbara Grutter decided a careerchange was in order which means she was ready to start her career. She appliedto a nearby law school, the University of Michigan Law School, with the hopes anddreams 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 a3.81 grade point average.
She had recently scored a 161 on the LSAT which is a goodscore, placing her in the 86th percentile. She made it onto the Michigan waitinglist, but not its classrooms. All she wanted was go and get her career going.Anyone should be able to do so. Unfortunately, the rejection initiallysurprised her, but her surprise turned to “dismay” when she recalled a recentarticle in a Detroit newspaper. This is all when that case basically tookplace. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majorityin a 5-4 decision, managed that the University of Michigan Law School had a convincinginterest in indorsing class diversity. Why the Racism? College admissions has infrequentlybeen just about assembly objective credentials thecourt believed that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor”underrepresented minority groups”.
Defendants had classified againsther based on race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of theCivil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U. S. C. 1981; that she was rejected becausethe Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicantsbelonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance ofadmission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups;and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. Noone should be discriminated because its color. We are all equal. Like alreadymentioned, The University of Michigan Law School followed an unofficial policythat sought to achieve student body diversity by giving “substantial weight” tothe race of each applicant in making admissions decisions, in addition to itsconsideration of other academic and non-academic variables.
The districtcourt 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 grantedcertiorari. The participants largely conceded the educational benefitsof a diverse student body, but declared that those benefits were unrelated becausethe use of race violated the constitution.
The intervenors supported theUniversity in its view that a diverse educational environment was beneficialfor all students and was a compelling interest. Inretrogressive, the Court of Appeals detained that Justice Powell’s belief inRegents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978),constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compellinggovernmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify theuse of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also forbidden thedistrict court’s finding that the Law School’s “critical mass” wasthe useful equal of a ration. Does the Universityof Michigan Law School’s use of racial preferences in student admissionsviolate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964? The constitutional provision issues EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit theLaw School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further acompelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from adiverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conductshighly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection isbased automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensuresthat all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully consideredalongside race. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process thatmay favor “underrepresented minority groups,” but that alsoconsidered many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for everyapplicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have beenunconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke. Universityof Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration forbeing a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Itwas felt that they were ruling the state adding points due to race in theuniversity admission point system was unconstitutional. The ruling was againstthe University of Michigan’s undergraduate admission. Grutter vs.
Bollinger wasa ruling that upheld the Gratz vs. Bollinger ruling. Violated the EqualProtection Clause.
What is an affirmative action? Affirmative action is apolicy or program that gives preferences to minorities in jobs or highereducation. John F. Kennedy started the idea of Affirmative action. Now to thequestion, is affirmative action still necessary for guaranteeing equalaccess to educational opportunities at elite universities and graduate schools?Should admissions decisions be based solely on academic criteria and merit? Inmy opinion, I think that affirmative action is not necessary anymore. Now aday’s education by the end of the day its what matters.
Universities now lookat high scores exam with out caring the race or diversity of everyone who wantsto continue their careers. We are all humans and we should be treated equallywith no matter of racism. Yes, admissions should be based solely on academiccriteria and merit. Litigation and politicalbattles about affirmative action tend to focus on undergraduate or professionalschool admissions, which are supervised by admissions professionals.