Barbara Grutter's Argumentative Analysis

Alvarez uses Minerva’s demand that her father earn her respect to show how she created her own inner strength and power in order to challenge her gender role. The discovery that Minerva’s father has another family and has kept it a secret leads Minerva to feel betrayed. In response to his excuses she says, “’I don’t owe you a thing,’ I said. My voice was as sure and commanding as his. ‘You’ve lost my respect’” (Alvarez 89). Minerva needs people to earn her respect; she is not going to hand it out to anyone. She has morals and her father has broken them, so he doesn’t deserve her respect – as a male he thinks he has the authority to do this, but she knows better. Minerva challenges the female portrayal by not blindly listening and following

Trooper Doherty stated that he asked Tiffany Taylor about their travel itinerary and the odor. He added that Tiffany Taylor stated that they were coming from Atlantic City, NJ, celebrating her birthday and that she had one drink early in the evening. He further stated that Tiffany Taylor advised that she was headed back to Roselle, NJ.

Procedural history. Barbara Grutter (Plaintiff), a white resident from the state of Michigan, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School (Defendant). She sued the Law School in a federal district court, and alleged racial discrimination against her in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of the Defendant’s consideration of race as a key factor in the school’s admissions process. The district court upheld the Plaintiff’s claim. The court of appeals reversed.

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.

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.

Joshua Sisk AP Government Dr. Smith 5/13/2017 Citation- Grutter v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 Facts- When a white woman, Barbara Grutter a resident of Michigan, applied for the University of Michigan law school, she was denied based on so called “soft variables”, such as race. Grutter sued the University of Michigan for racial discrimination. President of the university, Lee Bollinger, was elected the defendant of the case.

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

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

Faith and reason are thought to be foundations of defense for religious beliefs, having the same purpose many theologians and philosophers argue their relationship. Many believing that reason relies on faith while others think that just because you do not believe in one you are going to believe in the other, Karen Armstrong would agree since she suggests that they are not like political parties. Many theorists believe that reason is more on the logical side of the spectrum while faith is directed towards your beliefs and understandings of religious and theological claims. While scientists have argued they are not compatible because reason by itself gives us the answers to human life and faith is not a reliable source to provide us with those answers. Terry Eagleton suggests that they are one in the same and rely on each other.

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.

Strive for Gender Neutral Bathrooms The recent hot debate in our society focuses on the new controversial policy for public bathrooms to be identified as gender neutral. People who identify as a gender other than their biological sex are allowed to use the bathroom based on how they identify themselves. Elizabeth Vliet, is a current physician, has acquired specialized training from Johns Hopkins Sexual Medicine Consultation team, and provides her stance about the gender neutral bathroom policy will promote the increase of danger, especially for women. Vliet has treated numerous patients over the years regarding sex and gender issues.

Finally, the quality of counterargument expressed throughout Garretson’s essay, has also been effected by her biased stance on vegetarianism, because she has been unable to display and acknowledge opposing views in her piece. It is very important for one to present counterarguments in their writing because it shows that the writer is not narrow-minded, and instead, is fair by considering other perspectives. Additionally, the use of counterargument adds credibility to a writing and makes the arguments that one presents more believable and trustworthy. Since Garretson does not display or acknowledge any opposing views in her essay, her arguments lose a great deal of credibility. There are many different approaches that Garretson could have taken

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

Gretchen Weirob’s argument is based on the view that physical identification is more important towards personal identity rather than psychological features. For example, Weirob believes that a person can identify with their body because they can see their body and it’s certain capacity; the body is very rational. Which is why she would not want her brain to be put into someone else’s body. She believes the body is the unique differentiation to an individual’s identification.

The second case filed against the University of Michigan is Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The suit was filed by non-minority applicants who alleged the university for using race as the prevailing factor in admitting students and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI and Section 1981 (Green, 2004, p. 144). In their defense, the University of Michigan argued that the university seeks to ensure their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the student body by enrolling a “meaningful number” of underrepresented minority students (Green, 2004, p. 147). In contrast to the Gratz case, the district court did not follow Justice Powell’s rationale in the Bakke case and the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.