Transcript Welcome to the Unit 7 Seminar

LEGAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
THE STUDENTS
LS 517
Admissions & Diversity
DIVERSITY IN THE COLLEGE
ENVIRONMENT
Does diversity help the college experience?
How?
U. S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Prior to the decisions discussed next, the
United States Supreme Court had not
weighed in on a college admission case for
25 years.
FACTS IN THE GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
CASE
A white applicant who was denied admission sued the
University of Michigan Law School claiming that she was
discriminated against because of her race in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 USCS sec. 1981. The
University of Michigan Law School considered race as a
factor rather than to reach a quota when evaluating an
applicant. The court recognized that the university has a
compelling interest in a diverse student body and as long
as an applicant was reviewed individually that race could
be considered as a factor.
Grutter v. Bollinnger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003).
GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER
Decision: Narrowly–tailored use, by public law
school, of race in admissions decisions, to further
compelling interest in educational benefits of
diverse student body held not to violate the
Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
FACTS IN THE GRATZ V. BOLLINGER CASE
In this second case, the court addressed the issue of
whether University of Michigan’s undergraduate
admissions policy that automatically assigned points to
minority applicants was unconstitutional. The court held
that this point system which did not consider each
applicant individually was not narrowly tailored because it
unduly burdened individuals who were not members of
that group and therefore violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 244 (2003).
GRATZ V. BOLLINGER
Decision: Michigan public university’s pointsbased undergraduate admissions policy that
automatically awarded points to every
“underrepresented minority” applicant held to
violate Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection
clause.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
GOVERNMENT PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 42 U.S.C.S sec. 1981
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment states that the government cannot
discriminate based on race.
Admission to a public university is considered a
state benefit and is therefore subject to this
guarantee. The Supreme Court has allowed very
few exceptions to this important protection.
PARTIAL TEXT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (1 OF 5
SECTIONS)
Section 1.
 All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964
This provision prohibits
discrimination based on race, color,
or national origin. Title VI applies to
institutions that receive federal
funds.
TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964
Sec. 2000d. Prohibition against exclusion
from participation in, denial of benefits of,
and discrimination under federally assisted
programs on ground of race, color, or
national origin
 No person in the United States shall, on the
ground of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.
 (Pub. L. 88-352, title VI, Sec. 601, July 2, 1964,
78 Stat. 252.)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
To assist federal agencies that provide financial
assistance, the wide variety of recipients that
receive such assistance, and the actual and
potential beneficiaries of programs receiving
federal assistance, the U.S. Department of
Justice has published a Title VI Legal Manual.
The Title VI Legal Manual sets out Title VI legal
principles and standards. Additionally, the
Department has published an Investigation
Procedures Manual to give practical advice on
how to investigate Title VI complaints.
 Source:
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/titlevi.p
hp

TITLE 42 › CHAPTER 21 › SUBCHAPTER I
› § 1981
This section of the code grants all people
the same rights as “white citizens” to
enter into a contract for educational
services without discrimination.
42 U.S. Code Section (§) 1981
42 USC § 1981 - EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER
THE LAW



(a) Statement of equal rights All persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right
in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts,
to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of
persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and
shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined For purposes
of this section, the term “make and enforce contracts”
includes the making, performance, modification, and
termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual
relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment The rights protected
by this section are protected against impairment by
nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under
color of State law.
OTHER NOTABLE CASES
University of California
Regents v. Bakke (1978): A
majority of the U.S.
Supreme Court – five
justices -- held that while
the UC program was
unconstitutional because it
involved a quota, it was
lawful to take race into
account in admissions.


Hopwood v. State of Texas
(1996): U.S. Supreme
Court invalidated UT Law
School’s affirmative action
program. Held that the
14th Amendment does not
allow the court to favor
classes of minorities. Court
said no compelling
justification that allows it
to elevate some races over
others, even to correct
racial imbalance.
Arizona v. Wilson (1975):
court will not substitute its
judgment or interfere in the
academic programs of a