Achieving a diverse student body has been a goal within education since the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) that “separate but equal” violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Lipson (2007) state selective universities has been practicing race-based affirmative action and other racial diversity policies since 1960s. Many institutions try to establish methods to diversify the student body that does not discriminate against any particular group of ethnicities. Kaplan (2014) states admissions policies may not unjustifiably (bolded for emphases) discriminate on the basis of characteristics such as race, sex, disability, age, residence, or citizenship. Some institutions have utilized Affirmative action within the admissions process to justify using race in their decisions. Which leads to the wonder if Affirmative action the best way to achieve the institution’s diversity initiatives? Two important statues should guide institutions when formulating a plan to incorporate Affirmative action in its admissions process. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are guaranteed equal protection under the laws (US Const. art. XIV, § 1). Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (2000) regulates 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. The Department of Education (DOE) also recommends that higher education institutions should determine how the compelling interest relates to the mission and goal of the institution. This helps the institution defend their admissions policies if a student wanted to challenge their admissions decision. Kaplan (2014) states a race-conscious admissions plan will be constitutional only if the institution can prove that its use of race is narrowly tailored and further a compelling state interest. Furthermore, reviewing previous legislature regarding Affirmative action would be affective in deciding how to incorporate race without violating a person or groups’ rights.
…show more content…
Regents of the University of California at Davis (Davis) v. Allan P. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1948) is an influential case that determined whether or not Affirmative action is constitutional in admissions decisions. Davis had two separate admissions programs, one for general admissions and one for special admissions. The special admissions program was created for students who wish to be considered “disadvantaged” (meaning minority students). Davis accepted 100 students every year for their medical program; 16 of those slots were reserved for students accepted through the special admissions program. Evaluating how the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke could help determine if Affirmative action is the best way to achieve diversity at your institution. Bakke case review On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that Davis’ special admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The special admissions applicants were not evaluated against the applicants from the general admissions program. The general admissions applicants were not afforded the opportunity to compete for the seats reserved for the special admissions applicants and vice versa. Shelley v Kraemer, 344 U.S. 1 (1948) affirms if the distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on the color of a person’s skin then such rights are not absolute. It was unconstitutional for the school to exclude all applicants to compete for all seats in the medical program. Whether or not the special admissions program violated Title VI had not been examined by the lower court. A legal restriction which curtails on the civil rights of a single racial group …show more content…
This goal was rejected by the Supreme Court because Brown affirms preferring an individual and/or group based on their race or ethnic origin is discrimination. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all students regardless of race, which is not supported by this goal.
Additionally, their goal of countering the effects of societal discrimination was rejected because United responded to the discrimination in voting districts. The voting rights of those discriminated against waere corrected by the State but did not affect the voting rights of others. The Supreme Court noted that in all occurrences where societal discrimination has taken place, the government approved a classification that corrected the injustice without inflicting harm on others. Davis’ primary duty as a higher education institution is to educate, not combat and correct societal
Regents of the University of California at Davis (Davis) v. Allan P. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1948) is an influential case that determined whether or not Affirmative action is constitutional in admissions decisions. Davis had two separate admissions programs, one for general admissions and one for special admissions. The special admissions program was created for students who wish to be considered “disadvantaged” (meaning minority students). Davis accepted 100 students every year for their medical program; 16 of those slots were reserved for students accepted through the special admissions program. Evaluating how the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke could help determine if Affirmative action is the best way to achieve diversity at your institution. Bakke case review On certiorari, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that Davis’ special admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The special admissions applicants were not evaluated against the applicants from the general admissions program. The general admissions applicants were not afforded the opportunity to compete for the seats reserved for the special admissions applicants and vice versa. Shelley v Kraemer, 344 U.S. 1 (1948) affirms if the distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on the color of a person’s skin then such rights are not absolute. It was unconstitutional for the school to exclude all applicants to compete for all seats in the medical program. Whether or not the special admissions program violated Title VI had not been examined by the lower court. A legal restriction which curtails on the civil rights of a single racial group …show more content…
This goal was rejected by the Supreme Court because Brown affirms preferring an individual and/or group based on their race or ethnic origin is discrimination. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection to all students regardless of race, which is not supported by this goal.
Additionally, their goal of countering the effects of societal discrimination was rejected because United responded to the discrimination in voting districts. The voting rights of those discriminated against waere corrected by the State but did not affect the voting rights of others. The Supreme Court noted that in all occurrences where societal discrimination has taken place, the government approved a classification that corrected the injustice without inflicting harm on others. Davis’ primary duty as a higher education institution is to educate, not combat and correct societal