FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W78667065> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W78667065 endingPage "177" @default.
• W78667065 startingPage "169" @default.
• W78667065 abstract "Abstract In June 2003 the United States Supreme Court resolved constitutional issues in Grutter v. Bollinger and ruled that the University of Michigan Law School could use affirmative action to diversify its student body. In this article, we present legal and philosophical arguments to explain why, in certain circumstances, community colleges can and should use affirmative action when enrolling students in selective admissions programs. Introduction The Supreme Court's paired decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) resolved a controversial debate concerning the use of affirmative action at selective admission institutions. The Court had previously held that affirmative action could be used in the student admissions process (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978) but recent opinions from the Circuit Courts of Appeal were inconsistent in explaining when and how the policy could be implemented (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2002; Hopwood v. Texas, 1996; Smith v. University of Wash. Law School, 2000). In Grutter, the Court ruled that the highly competitive University of Michigan Law School could use race-based preferential affirmative action in order to attain the educational benefits flowing from a diverse student body. In Gratz, the justices held that an admissions process used by one of the selective undergraduate colleges at the University of Michigan was unconstitutional because it relied upon a numerical rating system that awarded a specific point value to some minority applicants because of their race or ethnicity. Considered in tandem, the Grutter and Gratz decisions approved the use of affirmative action for selective admission law schools and undergraduate colleges but only when used to attain well-articulated educational benefits such as the promotion of cross racial understanding and the break down of racial stereotypes. Furthermore, the Court ruled affirmative action was only permitted at these institutions when procedures assessed students in a highly individualized, holistic manner. Grutter and Gratz provided useful parameters describing when race-based affirmative action could be used by selective admission law schools and undergraduate colleges. But, the Court declined to explain when other higher education institutions could use affirmative action to secure the educational benefits flowing from a racially and ethnically diverse student body. Could non-selective public undergraduate institutions incorporate affirmative action into the admissions process for competitive academic programs? Could community colleges use affirmative action for selective admissions programs? These questions were left unaddressed by the Court. In this article, we offer an argument to explain why community colleges committed to open access and the open door admissions policy can and should use race-based preferential affirmative action in selective admissions programs when needed to achieve the educational benefits provided by a racially and ethnically diversified student body. Our argument integrates legal principles expressed in the Supreme Court's Grutter opinion with a contemporary reading of the philosophical principles supporting the open door admissions policy. Our proposal is circumscribed, however, by two considerations. First, we acknowledge that state legal prohibitions may preclude the use of affirmative action in student admissions. Second, we accept that affirmative action cannot be philosophically justified at the community college if student body diversity is gained by ignoring the traditional commitment to serve community residents. Diversity cannot be acquired in a manner consistent with the community college mission if institutions deny admission to local students and admit students from distant communities. In those circumstances, however, where affirmative action is not precluded by these conditions, the recent Grutter decision and a contemporary understanding of the open door authorize and justify the practice when needed to diversify the student body in selective admissions programs. …" @default.
• W78667065 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W78667065 creator A5043726210 @default.
• W78667065 creator A5076696302 @default.
• W78667065 date "2004-09-22" @default.
• W78667065 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W78667065 title "Grutter V. Bollinger and the Community College" @default.
• W78667065 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W78667065 type Work @default.
• W78667065 sameAs 78667065 @default.
• W78667065 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W78667065 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W78667065 hasAuthorship W78667065A5043726210 @default.
• W78667065 hasAuthorship W78667065A5076696302 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C2777732099 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W78667065 hasConcept C2781316041 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C144024400 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C17744445 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C199539241 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C2777732099 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C2778272461 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C2778449503 @default.
• W78667065 hasConceptScore W78667065C2781316041 @default.
• W78667065 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W78667065 hasLocation W786670651 @default.
• W78667065 hasOpenAccess W78667065 @default.
• W78667065 hasPrimaryLocation W786670651 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W116801845 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W151581798 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1538307911 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1577971156 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1641413747 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1854253488 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1925317352 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W1983089488 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2147584501 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2255747255 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2269886263 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2286864866 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2340166495 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2407871997 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2470425335 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W2900407333 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W3048164759 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W3122129116 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W3198245468 @default.
• W78667065 hasRelatedWork W329045473 @default.
• W78667065 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W78667065 isParatext "false" @default.
• W78667065 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W78667065 magId "78667065" @default.
• W78667065 workType "article" @default.