AP Gov Civil Liberties Vocab 3

Affirmative Action

Policies meant to address workplace and educational disparities related to protected class (race, ethnicity, origin, gender, disability, age); tries to improve access to education/employment opportunities to make up for previous disparities

Quotas (affirmative action)

• UCD had this

• Refers to set-aside spots for disadvantaged/minority groups in university admissions

  • i.e., if there are 100 spots available to be filled, a quota would be 20 of those spots being reserved for disadvantaged/minority applicants

Background of Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke

• Bakke, a white applicant, sued after being denied admission to UCD twice despite being highly qualified, arguing that the uni’s quota system violated his 14th amendment EPC rights; basically said ur rejecting b/c i’m white

• His MCAT scores + mean GPA exceeded the average of people within the program, and the only factor that could rlly be debated was his higher age

Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke [1978]

SC case ruling that UCD’s quota program didn’t pass strict scrutiny + violated 14th amendment’s EPC; set precedent that race CAN be used as one of several factors in consideration to admissions or a “plus factor”, it CANNOT be decisive

Reasoning of the decision in Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke

The goal of achieving a diverse student body (which posed many benefits to universities and their students) = compelling enough to justify race consideration in admissions

Narrow tailoring

• Principle that gov has to use minimum racial preference (no more than what’s necessary) to achieve its compelling interest of diversity

• Prevents compelling interest of diversity from being too heavy on the “non-preferred” (in college admissions, typically whites + asians)

• Supports idea that gov (unis) SHOULD HAVE explored race-neutral options to achieve compelling interest BEFORE involving race

Race-neutral alternatives

Things universities are meant to have potentially considered or tried out before using racial preference to achieve compelling interest of diversity:

• Preference based on socioeconomic status ($)

• Percentage plans (graduating in top __% of class → automatic admission to college)

• Recruitment of underrepresented minorities

  • Equal consideration when compared to competition + recruitment is based on exceptional skills/abilities (ensuring they are capable and not js chosen cs their race) + same chance w/ others at admission

• Eliminating legacy admissions

• (Magnet programs, tho that’s mainly for HS’s)

Gratz v. Bollinger [2003]

• SC case involving Uni of Michigan Ann Harbor’s Undergraduate skl use of racial preferences in scoring (point system) after white female applicant waitlist → rejected

• SC ruled that the admission policy violated EPC b/c ranking system gave automatic pt increase to all applicants in racial minorities instead of as a result of indiv. considerations (basically under-qualified students potentially given better chances at admission)

• SC held that the policies weren’t narrowly tailored enough to satisfy strict scrutiny

Grutter v. Bollinger [2003]

• SC case involving Uni of Michigan Ann Harbor’s Law School’s (EXTREMELY competitive) goal of enrolling “critical mass” of underrepresented students

• SC ruled that EPC DOESNT prohibit the skl’s narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to further their compelling interest in getting the edu. benefits that come from a diverse student body

• Upheld Bakke case precedent

What did “critical mass” mean in Grutter v. Bollinger?

A meaningful # of minorities/under represented groups

What factors influenced the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger?

1. Individual, holistic consideration of all applicants

2. Diversity in law skls important b/c it is the training grounds 4 future leaders (increased preparedness b/c educated in diverse settings w/ different types of ppl)

3. Amicus curiae briefs filed by retired military generals

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and UNC-Chapel Hill [2023]

• SC involving Harvard + UNC’s affirmative action programs; Harvard’s program involved holistic review of applicants at different levels, but gave “tips” to ppl that would make the class more diverse (I.e. more racially, ethnically, or socio-economically diverse)

• SC ruled that their admission programs violated 14th Amendment’s EPC

• Roberts (CJ majority) said EPC must apply to every person → race not a compelling interest in uni admissions anymore

• Overturned Bakke case precedent

Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education (2007)

• SC case involving Louisville (primarily black) JCPS skls enrollment plan to maintain racial balance; policy that no skl was allowed to have an enrollment of black students less than 15% or greater than 50% of its population

• SC ruled that the enrollment plan didn’t pass strict scrutiny

  • Use of race to achieve racial balance → what SC said was unconstitutional in Grutter

  • Plans weren’t narrowly tailored b/c the district didn’t consider other methods (like magnet programs) separate from racial classifications

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

• SC Case involving Seattle skl district; allowed students to choose any HS to attend, but if skls became too popular/full, tiebreakers were used to determine admission

  • If sibling goes to skl

  • Racial factor, meant to maintain racial diversity

• SC ruled that the enrollment plan didn’t pass strict scrutiny

  • Use of race to achieve racial balance → what SC said was unconstitutional in Grutter

  • Plans weren’t narrowly tailored b/c the district didn’t consider other methods (like magnet programs) separate from racial classifications

What type of case were Meredith v. Jefferson County BOE + Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1?

Two consolidated cases

What was special about the Court’s rulings in Meredith v. Jefferson County BOE + Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1?

The Court was technically 4-1-4; swing SCJ Kennedy had a concurrent but separate reasoning; related to but counted separately from the PLURALITY (4) AGAINST skl districts