Equal Protection: Other Suspect Classifications (Affirmative Action + Race Preferences)

What level of scrutiny is used for benign discrimination?

Strict scrutiny

What was the admissions system for Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke and what did Court hold?

In Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, the school reserved 16/100 places in its entering class for members of minority groups. The Court held that this special admissions program was unconstitutional, but race may be considered as a factor in the admissions process.

Contrast the admissions program and the Court’s holding in Grutter v. Bollinger with Gratz v. Bollinger.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld their admissions process which has a policy of "achiev[ing] diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education and thus make a law school class stronger than the sum of its parts” and expresses a longstanding commitment to "one particular type of diversity," that is, "racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against. However, this policy does not restrict the types of diversity contributions eligibility for substantial weight in the admissions process, but instead recognizes many possible bases of diversity admissions. This admissions process satisfies strict scrutiny, finding a compelling interest in its diversity justification and that its program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan.

In contrast, Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court rejected their admission process which automatically awarded 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission for underrepresented racial/ethnic minority group. Here, the Court fund that this did not offer applicants the individualized selection process and was not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity.

Why were the admission process in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC held unconstitutional?

Because Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points, those admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.