Abstract
The Grutter v. Bollinger case is considered one of the Supreme Court Landmarks. This case, applying student, Barbara Gutter was denied acceptance into The University of Michigan Law School because of the university’s affirmative action police and her race. This case review covers the facts of the case, including the name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, the judgment, the issues of what is in dispute, the courts holding, rationale, dissent of the Supreme Court members, party’s arguments, and personal commentary.
(a) Facts (name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, and the judgment)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306, was a Supreme Court case involving The …show more content…
These polices can be justified as being narrowly tailored and do not resemble a quota system. The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding) The University of Michigan presented a case, which to five out of four justices did not seem unconstitutional. The University proved that they had a compelling interest in creating a divers leaning environment as well as narrowly tailored polices that do not admit students solely by race but included a highly individualized review of each applicant.
(e) Dissent (if a valuable dissenting opinion exits, the dissent’s …show more content…
I also believe that having affirmative action programs in higher education can be beneficial but dangerous at the same time. In most other cases dealing with affirmative action in higher education the court has struck down the programs because they fail one of the strict scrutiny test. I find it very interesting that on the same day this case was presented to the Supreme Court, another case Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), again involving The University of Michigan, stating that the undergraduate admissions policy which awarded extra points to people in minority groups unconstitutional because it was not “narrowly tailored” to meeting the goal of student diversity. I find this interesting because the university found itself with two different ruling on the same topic in one day. I believe that this is a mistake on part of the university governing board that sets admissions standards. I believe a university should have standard admissions qualifications across to board unless becoming stricter for more competitive programs. In these cases I believe the court may have had so many dissent because these policies came from the same university showing lack of consistency in admission standards. In the most recent case involving affirmative action, Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) ruled in favor of the University of Texas. Stating that the use of race as a factor in
The Grutter v. Bollinger case is considered one of the Supreme Court Landmarks. This case, applying student, Barbara Gutter was denied acceptance into The University of Michigan Law School because of the university’s affirmative action police and her race. This case review covers the facts of the case, including the name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, the judgment, the issues of what is in dispute, the courts holding, rationale, dissent of the Supreme Court members, party’s arguments, and personal commentary.
(a) Facts (name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, and the judgment)
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306, was a Supreme Court case involving The …show more content…
These polices can be justified as being narrowly tailored and do not resemble a quota system. The use of an applicant's race as one factor in an admissions policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because the policy is narrowly tailored to the compelling interest of promoting a diverse student body.
(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding) The University of Michigan presented a case, which to five out of four justices did not seem unconstitutional. The University proved that they had a compelling interest in creating a divers leaning environment as well as narrowly tailored polices that do not admit students solely by race but included a highly individualized review of each applicant.
(e) Dissent (if a valuable dissenting opinion exits, the dissent’s …show more content…
I also believe that having affirmative action programs in higher education can be beneficial but dangerous at the same time. In most other cases dealing with affirmative action in higher education the court has struck down the programs because they fail one of the strict scrutiny test. I find it very interesting that on the same day this case was presented to the Supreme Court, another case Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), again involving The University of Michigan, stating that the undergraduate admissions policy which awarded extra points to people in minority groups unconstitutional because it was not “narrowly tailored” to meeting the goal of student diversity. I find this interesting because the university found itself with two different ruling on the same topic in one day. I believe that this is a mistake on part of the university governing board that sets admissions standards. I believe a university should have standard admissions qualifications across to board unless becoming stricter for more competitive programs. In these cases I believe the court may have had so many dissent because these policies came from the same university showing lack of consistency in admission standards. In the most recent case involving affirmative action, Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) ruled in favor of the University of Texas. Stating that the use of race as a factor in