Saturday, March 21, 2009
Dissent
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Michigan’s admissions policy is constitutional. Justices Anthony Kennedy, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas dissented. These justices did not believe that the law school’s admissions process was used to obtain a “critical mass”.
In part of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s dissent they argued that if “Michigan could not remain an elite institution and admit students under a race-neutral system, the Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system." (http://ballotpedia.org)
They also challenged the length of time the admissions policy will be lawful. In part of Justice Thomas’s dissent he said, "I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School's educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there… For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.” (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Chief Justice Rehnquist felt that the school’s admissions policy was based on a quota system that was ruled unconstitutional in California v. Bakke. Using admissions statistics, the Chief Justice noted the “tight association between the percentage of applicants and admittees of a given race and argued that the numbers were far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying 'some attention to [the] numbers.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
In part of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s dissent they argued that if “Michigan could not remain an elite institution and admit students under a race-neutral system, the Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system." (http://ballotpedia.org)
They also challenged the length of time the admissions policy will be lawful. In part of Justice Thomas’s dissent he said, "I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School's educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination because the academic credentials gap will still be there… For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause.” (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Chief Justice Rehnquist felt that the school’s admissions policy was based on a quota system that was ruled unconstitutional in California v. Bakke. Using admissions statistics, the Chief Justice noted the “tight association between the percentage of applicants and admittees of a given race and argued that the numbers were far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying 'some attention to [the] numbers.’” (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.action/)
My Own Argument
I agree with the decision of the court. Affirmative action shouldn’t be necessary but the reality of the world that we live in it unfortunately it is necessary. I think that an important part of their ruling is that the court said that this is not a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. I think that is a step in the right direction toward creating racial equality in the admissions process. The focus of admissions decisions needs to be based on the education and credentials of the applicant and the race of the applicant should not be a deciding factor in any application. I hope that Sandra Day O’Connor was right when she said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/) Hopefully someone studying this case 30 years from now will wonder why affirmative action policies were ever needed and be writing that they disagree with the decision of the court.
Rule of Law
The Court decided that as long as race wasn’t the deciding factor in a students admissions it was ok as long as it’s purpose is to create a “diverse class”. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html) It would be unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants will be considered constitutional in some circumstances. “The court did not reject the use of racial preferences to encourage diversity. Rather, it insisted that students be evaluated as individuals with race being only one of the many factors considered.” (http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/grutter-v-boll.html)
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called Proposal 2, passed and changed the admissions processes at the Law School. Proposal 2 joins California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200 as initiatives that ban the use of racial preference in public university admissions.
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called Proposal 2, passed and changed the admissions processes at the Law School. Proposal 2 joins California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200 as initiatives that ban the use of racial preference in public university admissions.
First Monday in October
I don’t think that there will ever not be an issue with appointing a woman to any position of power. I’m sure that there are many qualified women whose names are being mentioned to replace Ruth Ginsberg if she needs to step down, but should only women be considered? No. There shouldn’t be a need to fill a quota of women on the Supreme Court. There should be more emphasis on appointing someone that will do a great job then just focusing on his or her sex or race.
Justice Snow didn’t feel like he needed to see the viewing of this movie because no matter what content was in the film, he felt that it was ok because of the first amendment in the constitution. Justice Loomis was the only one to watch the entire film. Therefore I think that she is the only one who can give a valid argument if it is appropriate for the public’s consumption or not. Despite her conservative values she still gave the film a chance to see if it had any artistic merit.
If you want to watch offensive videos on your own time in the privacy of your own home, go for it. But these things should not be made readily available for children and should not be shoved in the faces of people that are offended by them. Personally, I think that pornography is degrading and disgusting, but it’s one of those things that is never going to go away. The issues of the film are very relevant today. I think that it was easier in the 70’s to regulate the pornography industry because the films were shown in theaters. Today it is more difficult to regulate because of how easy it is for anyone to stumble upon porn on the internet, even by accident.
Justice Snow didn’t feel like he needed to see the viewing of this movie because no matter what content was in the film, he felt that it was ok because of the first amendment in the constitution. Justice Loomis was the only one to watch the entire film. Therefore I think that she is the only one who can give a valid argument if it is appropriate for the public’s consumption or not. Despite her conservative values she still gave the film a chance to see if it had any artistic merit.
If you want to watch offensive videos on your own time in the privacy of your own home, go for it. But these things should not be made readily available for children and should not be shoved in the faces of people that are offended by them. Personally, I think that pornography is degrading and disgusting, but it’s one of those things that is never going to go away. The issues of the film are very relevant today. I think that it was easier in the 70’s to regulate the pornography industry because the films were shown in theaters. Today it is more difficult to regulate because of how easy it is for anyone to stumble upon porn on the internet, even by accident.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Reasoning of the Court
In March 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they consider race and are use a quota system that was previously ruled unconstitutional. In May 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, referred to the Regents of University of California v. Bakke decision allowing the use of race to bring diversity to the school.
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/June16_03/14_opinion_law.shtml) She also said that. “in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/) She hoped that one day affirmative action would not be necessary but until that day comes the law schools policy was just a means to bring diversity to the school. The court said that this should not be a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Public universities and institutes of higher education are now allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions processes. Race may not be the only factor, but may be taken into consideration. As long as the schools admissions process meets those guidelines, the court will uphold it as Constitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2002/21845res2003022002241/21845res20030220.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm14.htm
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0203/June16_03/14_opinion_law.shtml) She also said that. “in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/) She hoped that one day affirmative action would not be necessary but until that day comes the law schools policy was just a means to bring diversity to the school. The court said that this should not be a permanent policy. The Law School said that it would like to find a race-neutral admissions process and will discontinue its use of racial preferences as soon as possible. "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/grutter%20v.%20bollinger%20-%20the%20supreme%20court%27s%20decision/id/5103594)
Public universities and institutes of higher education are now allowed to use race as a factor in their admissions processes. Race may not be the only factor, but may be taken into consideration. As long as the schools admissions process meets those guidelines, the court will uphold it as Constitutional.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2002/21845res2003022002241/21845res20030220.html
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/affirm14.htm
Decision of the Court
On June 23, 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigans Law school affirmitive action program. The vote was decided 5-4. Judge Sandra Day O’Connor had the deciding vote. She said that unfortunately affirmative action is still necessary but "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/) The Court decided that as long as race wasn’t the deciding factor in a students admissions it was ok as long as it’s purpose is to create a “diverse class”. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_grutter.html)
The Court used precedent from a previous case Regents of University of California v. Bakke. In 1978 this case was also decided 5-4 and ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its admissions to promote diversity, but only if race is considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court backed up Bakke's basic approach and ruled that University of Michigan Law School's policy of giving significant but non-determinative weight to its applicants' race was "neutral" enough, and Michigan's interest in a diverse student body was "compelling" enough, to meet constitutionally standards of equality. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html)
The Court used precedent from a previous case Regents of University of California v. Bakke. In 1978 this case was also decided 5-4 and ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its admissions to promote diversity, but only if race is considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use a quota system based on race, but a school's use of affirmative action to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court backed up Bakke's basic approach and ruled that University of Michigan Law School's policy of giving significant but non-determinative weight to its applicants' race was "neutral" enough, and Michigan's interest in a diverse student body was "compelling" enough, to meet constitutionally standards of equality. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_regents.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)