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. Is affirmative action still necessary for guaranteeing equal access to educational opportunities at elite universities and graduate schools?
Another similar case, Yamashita v. Hinkle, was denied as well. The Supreme Court then ruled in 1922 that the color test alone is for those who are of the Caucasian race. The term "white" was meant for Caucasians and not those of other ethnicities with white skin. People of Asian lineage were unable to naturalize because of this. Following this was the Johnson-Reed Act, where a quota on immigration was placed, only 100 Japanese were allowed for the quota in 1929.
Title: Mendez v. Westminster (1946) Abstract: The Mendez v. Westminster (1946) was the stepping stone to ending school segregation in California. The lawsuit was led by Gonzalo Mendez and five other parents who were denied enrollment of their children in an Anglo school. This led them to protest and then file a class-action lawsuit against the Westminster School District of Orange County California. Accusing them of segregating Mexican and Latin decent students. With the help attorney Dave Marcus, the plaintiffs were able to prove segregation in schools by using social and educational theories conducted by social scientist.
Fisher v. Texas “Universities all over the country are breathing a sigh of relief,” Sherrilyn Ifill ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The final decision of the court case Fisher v. Texas, ruled against student Abigail Fisher; rejecting her opinion that colleges taking in consideration of race as a factor of acceptances is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment ("Fisher v University of Texas Syllabus”). This means that, when deciding among a pool of qualified applicants, a university can consider an applicant’s race, along with his or her test scores, grades, such things as extracurricular activities, athletic or musical ability, and special achievements outside school. Miss Fisher filed a suit after being outraged that she was declined by the color of her skin ("Fisher v. University of Texas”). The Supreme Court made a mistake when they decided with the University of Texas; no college should take in race as a factor when selecting applications of students.
The fifteen amendment of the United States Constitution prohibit the federal and state government from denying the citizens the right to vote, based on that citizen’s race, color or previous condition of servitude. The fifteen Amendments finally gave the African American the right to vote, but also allowed them to be able to elect into public office. Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promises if the 15 amendment would not fully realized for almost a century, thought the used of poll taxes, literacy test and other means. Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African American. Current controversies over the right to vote can be divided into two types of claims.
They actually stated this “Gerald Jackson, the founder of a nonprofit group called Learning for Everyone, has also made the point that not all students need to prepare for college”. I strongly disagree with that statement because there is very smart people who don’t need to prepare for college but college isn’t like high school, college is a very different level of education it’s gonna be a lot harder than high school work. So basically anybody going to college should study for it cause you know what to go to college thinking you know everything and then fail. The people that aren’t going to college and plan on going straight into the workforce will be hard, because they are going in blind without going to college to have a set job title. Both of the arguments were good ones they both stated facts on what they were arguing about i just thought argument B was the better argument.
The “Plessy V. Ferguson” case is a very important case in U.S. history and U.S. civil rights, as it legalized segregation for decades. Homer Plessy appeared to a white man living a Louisiana, but he was ⅛ black, which was considered black in Louisiana. When Plessy tried to board a “whites only” railroad car in protest of Louisiana's “Separate Car Act” that legally separated train cars, he was arrested when he refused to move to colored car on the train. Once the case went through both district and state courts, it moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court where Plessy and his attorney argued that the law ostracized the colored people from the white, which would be unconstitutional. This was known as the “Plessy V. Ferguson” case.
Since slavery was abolished, the countries laws have been “race-blind”. Meaning it has no Jim Crow law . But at the same time, there is no legal basis for positive discrimination. Certain cases involving positive discrimination have been brought before the high court in 2002, introducing racial quotations in the University of Rio de Janeiro, a point system which included being black or from a public school (40% of the students in Brazils public schools are black) gave you a higher chance of getting accepted. More extensive laws were signed by President Diselma Rousseff in 2012 which took the policy that the University of Rio de Janeiro introduced, and made it national.
Based on this consideration, Fisher believes she was denied because of her race. In her argument statement, Fisher attends that the use of race for consideration is in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. In spring of 2008, Fisher filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas. Eventually, after the
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
Before this case, people of the black community couldn 't go to college and they would settle for inferior. They weren 't even allowed to be interviewed for college as they were viewed as inferior as the titles they carried. Allan Bakke wanted to go medical school, but that was pretty difficult considering they didn 't even begin to consider letting him in. He filed a suit after his shocking revelation and the Supreme Court ordered the college to let him in, after which the college appealed to the court. The court accepted and the verdict came to this:" In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university 's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school 's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances."
Earls, a member of the school marching band and choir. And Daniel J., who yearned to be on the academic team. They argued for the removal of the mandatory drug tests because it infringes on their rights stated in the 14th amendment. In addition, they argued that “...the school district failed to refer to a special need for testing students… in extracurricular activities. Also, that the policy “…did not address a proven drug problem at the school.” The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court.
Wiley College thought that Negroes should be allowed to go to a state university with the whites because it’s fair that non colored people get more opportunities. OCC thought that Negroes shouldn’t be allowed to go to a state college because they 're not meant to go there and they would be too unhappy to focus on school.Throughout the debate the debaters mixed logos with ethos and pathos. Having a good mixture of the three makes your arguments stronger. In the debate when the debaters combined two of the three there counterarguments were
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.
In 1946, another African American man, Heman Sweat, was applying to University of Texas Law School, but was denied acceptance due to his race. In an attempt to get away with not admitting Sweat to the white law school, the University of Texas set up a black law school that did not live up to the standards it should have. Sweat knew he was not receiving the same education at the black law school that he would at the white law school, so he decided to sue and the case made it to the Supreme Court. In 1950, the Supreme Court completely agreed with Sweat, because of the obvious inequalities in the two schools. The University of Texas believed they were following the phrase “separate but equal,” when in reality nothing about the schools was equal.