Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Click here for direct link The Schuette case was in front of the Court just months after the Justices decided another big affirmative action case, Fisher v. In late June, the Supreme Court sent the Fisher case back to a lower court with instructions for that court to reconsider race as a factor in its admissions process.
Now that the decision is in, you can get a brief analysis of its impact from two leading experts. Click here for more on Chemerinsky. He focuses on legal issues arising from civil rights laws. Click here for more on Clegg. We asked each expert to send us an opening statement that sums up their position on the long-term impact of the decision.
You can read these statements below. Both Clegg and Chemerinsky will respond in detail to the points raised in the opening arguments.
You can read the court's decision in the case at this link: Opening statement from Chemerinsky: Those who care about diversity in higher education can breathe a sigh of relief: Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, for a Court, was explicit that it was not reconsidering Grutter v.
Bollinger, which held that colleges and universities have a compelling interest in having a diverse student body and that they may use race as one factor among many in admissions decisions to benefit minorities and enhance diversity.
What is troubling is that the Court decided at all. It clearly did not have jurisdiction.
The defendants were the University of Texas and the Texas Board of Regents being sued in their official capacity. The law is absolutely clear that such suits for money damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Moreover, her injury, the loss of an application fee, was not caused by the affirmative action program so she lacks standing. The case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Instead, the Court remanded the case to allow the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to decide whether Texas had shown that its affirmative action program was sufficiently narrowly tailored.
Justice Kennedy said that this requires that the University show that no race neutral alternative can achieve diversity and that the court should give no deference to the University of Texas.
In tone, this is different from Justice O'Connor's opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, but in terms of the law it always has been established that strict scrutiny requires proof that no less discriminatory alternative can suffice.
The bottom line then is that colleges and universities can continue to engage in affirmative action, but they will need to show that such programs are necessary in order to achieve diversity. Opening statement from Clegg: In the short term, the case is a loss for the University of Texas and for supporters of racial preferences in university admissions, because a court of appeals ruling that upheld such discrimination has been vacated and remanded.
The Supreme Court said today that strict scrutiny means strict scrutiny, and that what the court of appeals did was not strict enough.“Amid those liberal tendencies, though, was an outlier: a stark opposition to affirmative action.
Just 24 percent agreed that qualified minorities should receive special preference in hiring and. The bottom line then is that colleges and universities can continue to engage in affirmative action, but they will need to show that such programs are necessary in order to achieve diversity.
Opening statement from Clegg. Guy Mees The Weather is Quiet, Cool, and Soft Guy Mees’s (–) photographs, videos, and above all his fragile works on paper are characterized by .
Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin The Education Issues Page is a discussion of what's wrong with public education in America today, with an emphasis on the liberalism and political correctness involved in public education.
The quality of education is going down while the price keeps going up. is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.