Barbara Grutter, a white woman applied to the Law School in 1996. She received a 161 LSAT score and obtained an undergraduate GPA of 3.8. Grutter was not admitted at first but placed on a waiting list but ultimately rejected. In 1997, Grutter, similar to Bakke, filed a suit against the Regents of the University of Michigan claiming the she was discriminated against based on her race which violated her Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Grutter’s main arguments against the Law School included the fact that she was rejected because the usage of race was a “predominant” factor, allowing racial minority groups “a significantly greater chance of admission than students …show more content…
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standards of judicial reviews in the levels of judicial scrutiny used by courts in the United States. Strict scrutiny and the remaining level were first introduced as a concept in the decision of United States v. Carolene Products Co, 1938, in footnote 4. It was first applied in 1944 when deciding Korematsu v. United States. The review of strict scrutiny can be applied during two instances, one being when a fundamental right is infringed, especially those stated in the Bill of Rights, and those protected by the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, and secondly when “suspect classification” is applied to government action. “Suspect classifications” include groups that have been historically discriminated against, they possess a visible trait, they are powerless in the political system to protect themselves, and their visible trait does not stop them from participating in society in a meaningful way. Race, religion, national origin, and alien status are all considered suspect classification, and thus any governmental law or policy that discriminates them will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. For a law or policy to be declared constitutional under strict scrutiny, it must be satisfy three components: it must have a compelling state interest which is generally accepted as necessary and crucial, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that state interest. The Courts have never established a set definition of what constitutes a compelling state interest, thus making it harder to determine the remaining two components. One example of a compelling state interest includes national security. To determine if the interest is narrowly tailored, one must look if the law effects individuals more than
The case was Jennifer Gratz v Lee Bollinger. Jennifer Gratz, a caucasian women, applied to the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) and got denied. The University of Michigan’s admission was based on a 100 point, point system. The University automatically awarded 20 points to students who were a member a minority
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
Barbara received interviews from managers that are employees themselves. Occurring to the section, Ehrenreich said, “The real function of these test, I decide, is to convey information not to the employer but to the potential employee, and the information being conveyed is always: You will have no secrets from us.”(pg. 59). The fact that Ehrenreich is being interviewed, shows that this is reliable resource due to the fact she isn’t the one starting the interview. Throughout the book, the audience understand that the author can’t revealed herself to her employees or managers because of knowing the fact she’ll never receive the same treatment or job in the first place.
Elements of UC Regents v. Bakke UC Regents v Bakke helped affirm the use of having affirmative action when applying to colleges and when college decisions were made. Bakke was under the belief that he was being excluded because of his race. Sixteen of Hundred seats in the entering class were for minorities. Bakke was denied admission to the medical school for University of California Davis, though his MCAT and GPA score were much higher than the minority applicants
District Court judge, Sam Sparks, who upheld the university’s use of race when deciding admissions under the precedent of Grutter v. Bollinger because the university’s use of race was found to be narrowly tailored. When the decision was challenged, the case was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the district court’s ruling was affirmed. When Fisher challenged the decision, the case was heard by the Robert’s U.S. Supreme Court which decided that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had erred by not applying the test of strict scrutiny to the University of Texas at Austin’s decision to base some of their admissions on race, and so the case went back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard the case again, they decided that the university’s admission policy based somewhat on race was narrowly tailored to the objective of promoting educational diversity. Currently, the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin is pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme
Driven by the belief that space was bequeathed to them, the Native Americans feel justified in defending their land against the growing encroachment of the white man as the American landscape unfolds. Their motive is the premise that a higher authority has granted them the right to the space, and that the Great Spirit has created the landscape exclusively for them. Fueled by the formation of conflict over land, the Great Ottawa Chief, Pontiac, in his speech at Detroit, seeks to persuade the tribes, including the Ottawa, Huron, and Pottawatomi to agree to resistance. Invoking the words of the Delaware prophet, Neolin, Pontiac recounts the vision which he believes justifies resistance. Neolin urges the tribes to sever all relations to the customs
Grutter V. Bollinger Research Paper 2 Abstract Barbara Grutter (plaintiff) which is a resident of Michigan who was denied admissions into the University of Michigan Law School. Lee Bollinger (defendant) was president of the University of Michigan. Grutter filed this suit because the University had discriminated against the basis of race. Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admissions is constitutional if it treats race as some factor.
Hailey Holloway has a serious knack with running from her problems. At the first sign of trouble she can be found lacing up her Nikes and hitting the road. Dacea has been patient with her, but a man can only handle so much. He told her before that he would not chase after her again and is he nothing, if not a man of his word. Katherine is more than happy to pick at the wound that festers between them.
The Supreme Court emphasized the learning benefits from a diverse student body. This ruling was also a win for people that are against racial preference. The ruling said, “Courts must consider whether such preferences are narrowly tailored to achieving their educational goals
As a sportswriter, Pennington chooses his words carefully. Through the use of language which is clear, simple and easily understood he makes the article more accessible to a broader audience. The author continues with the quote, “Even in high school cheerleading, there is no uniformity of regulations. . . and little state control” (Pennington). The article offers a tone of concern about the dangers involved in today’s cheerleading programs.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
Introduction The case of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and centers on the University of North Carolina's use of race in its admissions policies. The petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, have brought claims alleging that the university's use of race discriminates against Asian American applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal issues before the Supreme Court include whether the university's use of race in admissions decisions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, whether the university has a compelling interest
The “special” federal grand jury, that was created in 1970, can be used to investigate “possible” organized criminal activity in preference to a specific crime. Grand juries have been used by the government to gather information on political movements, because of their broad subpoena powers. The due process clause of the constitution commands that no one may be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law.” The due process of law can be found in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution.
SUMMARY In this landmark case Allan Bakke, a white applicant to the University of California, Davis Medical School, sued claiming his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standing rule at the time was that race may be a factor in determining admission to educational institutions; however it cannot be the sole determining factor. FACTS OF THE CASE The University of California, Davis Medical School had been reserving 16 spots in each class out of 100 for disadvantaged minorities.
This ruling is controversial because many say that this will let guilty people go free on police carelessness, while others say that the constitution is not a technicality and allows for the equal prosecution of all