The issue of equality based on race has given people a plagued view of America since its existence, and this issue of race does not stop when it comes to college admission. In 2003, a case known as Grutter v. Bollinger came in front of the Supreme Court and challenged the constitutional protection or lack of on an affirmative action plan adopted by an university. Grutter deals with the role the state plays in including a minority group into a larger part of the schools student body for educational benefits; this is the basis of affirmative action. The problem some people say of this is that under-favored minority groups are occasionally felt like they are pushed aside for these other group members. The challenge to affirmative action brought
…show more content…
While observing the background of the Grutter v. Bollinger it is essential to take a deep review into the major precedent case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the University of Michigan Law School admission process, and the cases progression through the lower courts that lead to the Supreme Court to take the case. Michael Higginbotham and Kathleen Bergin academic journal published in the Chronicle Of Higher Education said that the precedent case of Bakke is what planted the foundation of what is a legal form of affirmative action in American universities. The author of the majority in University of California v. Bakke, Justice Powell, endorsed the flexible use of race alongside other factors to further the compelling state interest in the majority ruling. This ruling also meant that narrow tailoring is constitutional, but a quota system is unconstitutional (Higginbotham and Bergin). Andrew Anderson’s paper published in the James Cook University Law Review said that the University of Michigan Law School is cited as a premier law school in America. The universities admission policy was set to foster a diverse student body, but it still held a high regard to education (Anderson). In 1996, Barbra Grutter applied to The University of …show more content…
The petitioner under Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbra Grutter (with the addition of her law team), argued in front of the Supreme Court that the universities admission program was unconstitutional due to the lack of it being “narrowly tailored” (Higginbotham and Bergin). They also said, “[b]y definition, a diversity based program cannot be overbroad. Its goal is not meant to provide proportional compensation for prior wrongs (Higginbotham and Bergin). The defense law team for Bollinger argued in front of the court stating, “enrolling a ‘critical mass’ of underrepresented minority students was ‘necessary’ as to realize the educational benefits of a diverse student body” (Anderson). A majority decision was made and Justice Sandra O’Connor wrote the majority opinion after a five to four decision in favor of the university. The way the justices voted were “O’Connor J, with whom Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer, JJ joined, gave the opinion of the majority. Rehnquist CJ was joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas JJ in a dissenting opinion” (Anderson). Justice O’Connor stated that the classifications are constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to further compel state interests. Justice O’Connor also wrote that the majority agreed with Bakke and said Michigan Law School admission policy was for the purpose of
While observing the background of the Grutter v. Bollinger it is essential to take a deep review into the major precedent case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the University of Michigan Law School admission process, and the cases progression through the lower courts that lead to the Supreme Court to take the case. Michael Higginbotham and Kathleen Bergin academic journal published in the Chronicle Of Higher Education said that the precedent case of Bakke is what planted the foundation of what is a legal form of affirmative action in American universities. The author of the majority in University of California v. Bakke, Justice Powell, endorsed the flexible use of race alongside other factors to further the compelling state interest in the majority ruling. This ruling also meant that narrow tailoring is constitutional, but a quota system is unconstitutional (Higginbotham and Bergin). Andrew Anderson’s paper published in the James Cook University Law Review said that the University of Michigan Law School is cited as a premier law school in America. The universities admission policy was set to foster a diverse student body, but it still held a high regard to education (Anderson). In 1996, Barbra Grutter applied to The University of …show more content…
The petitioner under Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbra Grutter (with the addition of her law team), argued in front of the Supreme Court that the universities admission program was unconstitutional due to the lack of it being “narrowly tailored” (Higginbotham and Bergin). They also said, “[b]y definition, a diversity based program cannot be overbroad. Its goal is not meant to provide proportional compensation for prior wrongs (Higginbotham and Bergin). The defense law team for Bollinger argued in front of the court stating, “enrolling a ‘critical mass’ of underrepresented minority students was ‘necessary’ as to realize the educational benefits of a diverse student body” (Anderson). A majority decision was made and Justice Sandra O’Connor wrote the majority opinion after a five to four decision in favor of the university. The way the justices voted were “O’Connor J, with whom Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer, JJ joined, gave the opinion of the majority. Rehnquist CJ was joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas JJ in a dissenting opinion” (Anderson). Justice O’Connor stated that the classifications are constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to further compel state interests. Justice O’Connor also wrote that the majority agreed with Bakke and said Michigan Law School admission policy was for the purpose of