Monday, May 9, 2011

Popular Sovereignty
The principle in which people have the power over the government. The students involved in the aforementioned cases all felt their rights were being infringed upon and took it upon themselves to take them to court.

Checks and Balances
The President of the United States changed the specifics of the affirmative action policy quite a few times, which changed the laws that the courts had to judge by.

Judicial Review
High court systems could overturn a lower court's ruling on any of the cases.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that “race can be a factor for universities shaping their admissions programs.” However, it cannot be a large factor for the schools’ admissions programs due to the fact that it may lead to unconstitutional policies.

However, in a separate decision, the courts system put the hammer down on a “point system” utilized by a University of Michigan law school, which gave “race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.” The ultimate vote in the courts was 5-4 for the law school program, and the undergrad program ending in a vote of 6-3. This decision will most likely have a large effect on the majority of private colleges and universities as well as government decision-making and the business world, as all are attempting to boost minority’s enrollment without being unconstitutional.

These two cases from the University of Michigan were the “most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students” (CNN Justice).

Ricci v. DeStefano

June 29, 2009
In a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, 18 plaintiffs—17 white and 1 Hispanic—argued that lieutenant and captain exam results from 2003 were tossed out when it was found out that very few minority firefighters were capable for improvement. The city claimed they threw out the results because they feared liability under a disparate-impact statute for issuing tests that discriminated against minority firefighters. The plaintiffs claimed that they were victims of reverse discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the firefighters, saying New Haven's "action in discarding the tests was a violation of" the Civil Rights Act.

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Dec. 13, 2000
The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicant, with 100 points needed to ensure admission, however the University gave ethnic groups an automatic 20-points on this scale. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both Caucasian residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (one in fall '95 and the other in fall '97) and both were denied admission to the university. Their class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment... and for racial discrimination."
"In Gratz v. Bollinger, a federal judge ruled that the use of race as a factor in admissions at the University of Michigan was constitutional. The gist of the university's argument was as follows: just as preference is granted to children of alumni, scholarship athletes, and others groups for reasons deemed beneficial to the university, so too does the affirmative action program serve 'a compelling interest' by providing educational benefits derived from a diverse student body" (Brunner).

March 27, 2001
Grutter v. Bollinger, a case like the University of Michigan undergraduate lawsuit, involved a different judge drawing an conflicting conclusion, ruling the law school's policy invalid that that "intellectual diversity bears no obvious or necessary relationship to racial diversity." But on May 14, 2002, the decision was upturned on appeal, ruling that the admissions procedure was actually constitutional.
June 23, 2003
In the most significant affirmative action decision since the Bakke case, the Supreme Court maintains the University of Michigan Law School's policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when choosing their students because it entends "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Supreme Court ruled that the more mechanical approach of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which uses a point system that rates students and awards additional points to minorities, had to be fixed. The undergraduate program did not provide the "individualized consideration" of applicants that was considered necessary on the Supreme Court’s past ruling on affirmative action.
Nov. 3, 1997
A state ban in California, "Proposition 209," passed that banned all forms of affirmative action. "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." This declaration, proposed in '96, stayed in the courts for almost a year before it was passed.

Dec. 3, 1998
Washington became the second state to ban affirmative action policies when it passed the "Initiative 200," which was similar to P 209.

Feb. 22, 2000
Florida baned race as factor in college admissions, following Gov. Jeb Bush's "One Florida" initiative which aimed at eventually abolishing all affirmative action in the state.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School


March 18, 1996 
Cheryl Hopwood, along with three other Caucasian law-school applicants at the University of Texas, challenged the school's affirmative action program, claiming they were rejected from the university because of unjust inclinations toward less capable minority applicants. 

The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals suspended the university's affirmative action admissions program. It also ruled that the 1978 Bakke decision was invalid; while Bakke rejected racial quotas, it declared that race could serve as an aspect in admittance. In addition to repairing past discrimination, the Bakke case stated that the addition of minority students would make the student body more diverse and was beneficial to the entire educational atmosphere.

Hopwood, however, didn’t accept the claim of diversity as a goal, stating that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." The Supreme Court allowed the ruling to stand. In 1997, the Texas Attorney General announced that all "Texas public universities [should] employ race-neutral criteria."

However, the June 23, 2003, Supreme Court ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger invalidates Hopwood.

Monday, April 25, 2011


July 19, 1995 
President Clinton specified in a speech that while the Adarand case set more severe guidelines to reform affirmative action, if actually reaffirmed the need for the regulation and confirmed the continuing existence of the existence of discrimination in the United States. He later called for the banning of any program that created a quota or preferences for unqualified individuals, created reverse discrimination, or continued even after it's "equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña



June 12, 1995
Similar to the Crose case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña was the equivalent of the latter case but instead of state and local programs, it applied to federal programs. The Court again called for "strict scrutiny" in determining whether prejudice existed before applying a federal affirmative action program. "Strict scrutiny" meant that affirmative action programs fulfilled a "compelling governmental interest," and were "narrowly tailored" to match the specific circumstance. Although two of the judges felt that there should be a total outlaw of affirmative action, the majority of judges claimed that "the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country" justified the use of race-based corrective measures in certain situations.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

City of Richmond v. Croson


Jan. 23, 1989
The City of Richmond v. Croson case involved affirmative action programs at the state and local levels. A program in the city of Richmond set aside 30% of city construction funds for black-owned firms, and was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that an "amorphous claim that there has been past discrimination in a particular industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial quota." It continued that affirmative action must be subject to severe scrutiny and is unconstitutional unless racial discrimination can be proven to be prevalent throughout a single industry. The Court maintained that the purpose of strict scrutiny is to `smoke out' unlawful uses of race by guaranteeing that the legislative body is pursuing a, objective important enough to necessitate use of a highly suspect tool. “The test also ensures that the means chosen `fit' this compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype."

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke


June 28, 1978
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a major Supreme Court case that helped decide limitations on affirmative action, to make sure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority; affirmative action became just as unfair as before if it led to reverse discrimination.

The case involved the Univ. of California Medical School, which had two separate admissions pools, one for standard applicants, and another for minority and economically disadvantaged students. The school reserved 16 of its 100 places for this latter group.
Allan Bakke, a Caucasian applicant, was rejected from the medical program two times, although there were minority applicants admitted with significantly lower scores than his. Bakke maintained that judging him on the basis of his race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that while race was a legitimate factor in school admissions, the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not. The Supreme Court, however, was split 5–4 in its decision on the Bakke case. Although there was no straightforward majority view on using race as a factor in general, the majority agreed that the UC admissions program was unconstitutional because it disqualified applicants on the basis of race. Likewise, the same 5-4 split agreed that UC would be required to admit Bakke.

Monday, April 18, 2011


March 6, 1961
President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order (#10925) that government contractors take” affirmative action” to ensure that applicants are employed and treated without taking into consideration their race, religion, color, or nationality. The original intent of the order was to create an equal opportunity for everyone and to take positive action to strengthen efforts to realize true equal opportunity for all. This executive order was later superseded by Executive Order 11246 in 1965.

July 2, 1964
Civil Rights Act was signed by President Lyndon Johnson, which prohibited discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Sept. 24, 1965
Issued by President Johnson, the executive order requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward possible minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment. Contractors must take certain measures to ensure equality in hiring and were required to document all their efforts.

Oct. 13, 1967
The order was amended to cover discrimination on the basis of gender by President Johnson.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

In the U.S., affirmative action allows those who are targets of societal discrimination, such as minorities and women, to bypass the effects of discrimination and be allowed positions in education and employment. It was originally put into effect by federal agencies that enforced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 along with two executive orders, providing that government contractors and educational institutions would develop affirmative action programs as long as they received funding. The act that set up commissions to enforce such plans was known as the Equal Employment Opportunities Act, which was developed in 1972. These acts caused what people considered “reverse discrimination.” At first, the Supreme Courts accepted these arguments, but it did however let the programs continue in the long run in voluntary affirmative action programs (unions and private businesses, for example; without federal gov’t involvement). In 1991, the Civil Rights Act was revamped to reaffirm the national government’s place in affirmative action, however the Supreme Court put limits on the act, such as limits on the use of race in awarding government contracts. Such affected government programs later updated themselves to include anyone considered “socially disadvantaged.” Later in 2003, the Supreme Court decided that educational institutions could “consider race as a factor in admitting students as long as it was not used in a mechanical, formulaic manner” (Columbia University).

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Affirmative action is an attempt to promote equal opportunity in government and educational settings to ensure that minority groups within a society are included in all programs. The justification for affirmative action is to make up for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture or to address existing discrimination.

Some countries have laws on racial equality, however affirmative action is illegal because it doesn't treat all races equally. This approach of equal treatment is sometimes described as being "color blind", hoping that it is effective against discrimination without reverse discrimination.