FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W40878633> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W40878633 endingPage "8" @default.
• W40878633 startingPage "3" @default.
• W40878633 abstract "This article aims to set in context the Supreme Courts recent opinions in the two affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan: Grutter v. Bollinger (law school admissions program; found constitutional) and Gratz v. Bollinger (undergraduate admissions program; found unconstitutional). The article will provide background, suggestions, and perspective on four issues: * What Did the Supreme Court Rule, in Grutter and Gratz? How Are the Rulings a Departure from Previous Rulings? * Impact of State Referenda Prohibiting Race-Conscious Admissions (California and Washington State) * Some Ways of Dealing with Admissions and Financial Aid, Post-Grutter * The Michigan cases in Perspective * What About Students Other Than Those Applying to Elite Schools? * Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) * The Impact of Hispanics: Now America's Largest Minority The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. When exceptions are made, they are to be made only after strict scrutiny of any reasons proffered as justification for classifying Americans by race or ancestry (hereafter referred to in shorthand as race). When strict scrutiny was announced, during World War II, it was announced with a fact-specific exception: wartime emergency (pressing public necessity) allowed the Supreme Court to acquiesce in the re-location of Americans of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast. The Grutter decision, as crafted by Justice O'Connor, is a creative adaptation of that original exception. Her decision allows a race-conscious admissions program to survive strict scrutiny by defining access to higher education-especially elite higher education-as essential to the life of the nation and as a pressing public necessity. However, the race-conscious system approved in Grutter is essentially tailored to fit a black-white paradigm. If the approved concept of critical mass evolves into a system of admitting students in the same proportion mechanically as their race or ethnicity is represented in the applicant pool, such a system may be subject to serious constitutional challenge. What Did the Supreme Court Rule, in C r utter and Crotz? How Are the Rulings a Departure from Previous Rulings? DIVERSITY IS A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST In two opinions announced on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court held that student body is a compelling state interest-an interest which justifies the use of race or ethnicity as one among many factors in university admissions, as long as each applicant is considered individually and as a whole (holistically); there are no race-based disparities in level of admissions review; and no seats are protected or reserved for certain students based on race. In Grutter v. Bollinger (involving the University of Michigan Law School), the Court held, in a 5-4 vote, that the admissions scheme was constitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger involving the University of Michigan's undergraduate school, the School of Literature, Arts and Sciences (LSA)], the Court held, in a 6-3 vote, that the admissions scheme was unconstitutional. The Court evaluated both programs-law school and undergraduate-under both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (thus making both opinions applicable to private as well as public institutions). In Justice O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter, which upheld race-based admissions programs if they were narrowly tailored, the Court established that diversity is a legitimate basis for raceconscious admissions programs. This had been Justice Powell's rationale in Bakke, but since no other Justice had explicitly signed on to his opinion, there had always been some doubt. Now, diversity is established as a compelling state interest. …" @default.
• W40878633 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W40878633 creator A5068541151 @default.
• W40878633 date "2003-07-01" @default.
• W40878633 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W40878633 title "Affirmative Action Dodges a Bullet: What May Be Permissible? What's Next?" @default.
• W40878633 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W40878633 type Work @default.
• W40878633 sameAs 40878633 @default.
• W40878633 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W40878633 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W40878633 hasAuthorship W40878633A5068541151 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2776824291 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2777732099 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2779160553 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C2908542518 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W40878633 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C11413529 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C144024400 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C166957645 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C17744445 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C199539241 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2776050585 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2776824291 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2776949292 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2777732099 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2778272461 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2779160553 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2779343474 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C2908542518 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C41008148 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C48103436 @default.
• W40878633 hasConceptScore W40878633C95457728 @default.
• W40878633 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W40878633 hasLocation W408786331 @default.
• W40878633 hasOpenAccess W40878633 @default.
• W40878633 hasPrimaryLocation W408786331 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W1486093807 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W1530119201 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W1578344720 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W1687178906 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W1953984260 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W213120744 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W2291873859 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W233033427 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W2422330626 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W264142327 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W3121951782 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W3122774904 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W3122931036 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W3125879000 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W45531392 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W49215751 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W836518742 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W968812532 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W2182254117 @default.
• W40878633 hasRelatedWork W284589452 @default.
• W40878633 hasVolume "79" @default.
• W40878633 isParatext "false" @default.
• W40878633 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W40878633 magId "40878633" @default.
• W40878633 workType "article" @default.