Equality+of+Results+Equality+of+Opportunity

Equality of Results/Equality of Opportunity By: Mevlana Hursid (editor), Kelly Reid, Derek Molkenbur

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1977)
AP Gov Units: Chapter 5: Civil Liberties, Chapter 6: Civil Rights Keywords: Civil Rights, Fourteenth Amendment Mnemonic Device: Are you a minority and have good grades, then we'll take you! Background: A thirty-five year old white man named Allan Bakke, applied to the Medical School at the University of California at Davis, but was rejected twice. "The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress long standing, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession". Bakke believed that he was qualified to attend this school as his "college GPA and test scores exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted to the two years Bakke's application s were rejected". Bakke brought up this case first at the courts in California, "then in the Supreme Court" because he believed that he was not accepted by the University due to his race. Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school? Answer: There was a split vote for this case and there was no majority opinion. “Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “ Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. decided that the medical school should accept Bakke into their program. However, “Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”. The other four justices came to a conclusion stating that in higher learning institutions students can be held accountable for their race. Later Powell agreed, “Contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria”. The court came to a conclusion by managing “to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality, while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.” Significance: This case stated that race could be used as one factor for admissions to a college, but not the only factor. If a student applying to any college has good grades and meets the qualifications, then they should be accepted. Race should not come into play for admission directors. Policy Impact: After the ruling of this case, universities across the nation had to follow the policy of not judging and accepting an applicant based on their race. Today, is it rare to see an applicant applying to an university twice and not getting accepted because they are white and do not fall in one of the minority groups. However, one may be rejected because they do not qualify for the school, which is a different situation. Moreover, even though supreme courts pass laws to prevent such actions, many times colleges try to make excuses and state that they are not only looking for minorities, when they actually are. We do not live in an utopia, but if one accuses a college for committing such act, then they will be brought to court for being unconstitutional. Source of information: www.oyez.org

United Steelworkers v. Weber (1978) AP Gov Units: Chapter 5: Civil Liberties, Chapter 6: Civil Rights Keywords: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Protection Clause Mnemonic Device: Training the Blacks? Background: In order to maximize the number of black “skilled craft workers” in the United Steelworkers of America andthe Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation this “affirmative action-based training program” was going to take action. The training program reserved the blacks “half of the eligible positions in the training program.” A white named Weber “was passed over for the program.” In this situation Weber believed that he was "the victim of reverse discrimination." Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber and United Steelworkers v. Weber were all used to settle the case United States v. Weber. Question: Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race? Answer: The settlement included " 5 votes for the United Steelworkers of America and 2 votes against it." The decision for this case was no. The Supreme Court that the training program was legal due to the Act of 1964. It “did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps to implement the goals of Title VII.” The program followed the law by “eliminating archaic patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy while not prohibiting white employees from advancing in the company.” Significance: This case stated that the training programs were only for the blacks and whites were not allowed to take part in this action. This isolated the whites from the blacks and through the eyes of government officials, this is unconstitutional. Policy Impact: With the help of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blacks and whites were treated equally, and their race was not a factor for employment. Today, while there may be some discrimination detected, race is not taken into account for employment or any other activities. For the most part, whites and blacks share the same qualities and therefore, are eligibility for any position. Based on the Civil Rights Act and many other laws and regulations, this nation prohibits any acts of discrimination and if such actions are detected, then they could bring their case to court. Source of information: www. oyez.org

Grove City College v. Bell (1983) Background Grove City College, a private liberal arts school, sought to preserve its institutional independence from the government by repeatedly refusing state and federal financial assistance. However, a large number of students who attended the school were receiving grants through a Department of Education run program. The DOE concluded that this assistance to students qualified the College as a recipient of federal assistance and made it subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. When the College refused to comply with the requirements, the DOE attempted to terminate assistance to the student financial aid program. Consequently the College challenged the DOE's actions. Question Because some of its students received federal aid, was Grove City subject to the federal requirements of Title IX? Additionally, did the provisions of Title IX violate the First Amendment rights of the college? Answer The Court held that there was, essentially, no difference between institutional assistance and aid received by a school through its students in the form of federal grants. The Court concluded that prohibiting discrimination as a condition for federal assistance did not violate the First Amendment rights of the college, and that Grove City was free to end its participation in the grant program and continue to disregard Title IX. Significance This case stated that even if the school itself does not receive federal funding, it is subject to follow all rules and regulations of the federal government if its students accept federal aid. Policy Impact After this case, universities had to make the decision of whether or not to allow students to receive federal aid, as well as make the decision of whether or not to accept federal funding, if they did not want to follow the regulations and provisions set forth by Title IX. One such school that joined Grove City is Hillsdale College.

Hopwood v. Texas (1996) AP Gov Units: Unit 5: Civil Liberties Keywords: 14th Amendment, "reverse discrimination," Equal Protection Clause Background: Cheryl Hopwood was rejected from the University of Texas, and filed a lawsuit in 1992. She claims she was denied entrance inot the University of Texas, while other under-qualified minorities were allowed in. All had better combined LSAT and grade scores than 36 of the 43 Latinos admitted, and 16 of the 18 black students admitted. A circuit court deemed this unconstitutional, and the University appealed it to the Supreme Court in 1996 Question: Should universities be able to use race as a factor in determining admissions in order to create a "less hostile environment"? Answer: The court denied certiorari, and Justice Ginsburg explained that the University was no longer defending the specific admissions policy that had been at issue in the lawsuit and was rather attempting to justify only the rationale for maintaining a race-based admissions policy. Accordingly, because the Supreme Court reviews judgments and not opinions, Justice Ginsburg stated that it "must await a final judgment on a program genuinely in controversy before addressing the important question raised in this petition." Significance: This decision became the 'law of the land' for Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi because these were the states that the 5h District covered. Policy Impact: was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Source of information: http://www.villagevoice.com/1997-11-25/news/cheryl-hopwood-vs-state-of-texas/

Richmond v. Croson (1988) AP Gov Units: Unit 5: Civil Liberties Keywords: Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment Background: In 1983, the City Council of Richmond, Virginia adopted regulations that required companies to award city construction contracts to subcontract 30 percent of their business to minority business enterprises. The J.A. Croson Company, which lost its contract because of the 30 percent set-aside, brought suit against the city. Question: Did the Richmond law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Answer: In a vote of 6-3, the court decided in favor of Croson and said that the regulations were in fact unconstitutional. O'Connor further held that allowing claims of past discrimination to serve as the basis for racial quotas would actually subvert constitutional values: "The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs." Significance: Decided that cities could not enact affirmative action plans without support and only on the basis that more diversity would overall help the community. Policy Impact: Regardless of its application to racial minorities or to other racial groups, race-based classifications require the highest level of scrutiny in all cases. There can be no ambiguity at all, and there must be very clear standards for these programs Source of information: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1428 http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/equality-and-the-constitution/city-of-richmond-v-j-a-croson-company-2/2/

Murphy v. United Parcel Service (1998) Background At the time of his hiring by United Parcel Service to a mechanics position that required him to drive commercial trucks, Vaughn Murphy was misdiagnosed as meeting Department of Transportation health guidelines. When UPS discovered that Murphy's blood pressure exceeds DOT requirements, they fired him. Murphy challenged his dismissal as a form of discrimination prohibited under Title I of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Question Is high blood pressure a "substantial impairment", as outlined in the American with Disabilities Act, that might limit one's life activities so considerably to justify their being called "disabled" and, consequently, entitled to protection under the ADA? Answer No. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the determination of whether one is "disabled" under the ADA must be made in light of mitigating circumstances. In the present case, the Court did not find Murphy to be disabled since he could function normally with blood pressure medication. The Court decided that in order for an individual to be designated as "disabled", an employee must be unable to perform more than just one task, which did not apply to Murphy. Significance As a result of this case decision, Murphy had to seek a job that differed from the commercial truck driving spot he had originally wanted. He could still work as a mechanic (which was the job he was officially hired to do). Policy Impact Companies, such as United Parcel, could continue to deny individuals with certain disabilities certain jobs, such as in this case, so long as there was another job they could take up. Additionally, it affected the definition of "disabled" and would affect all future legislation relating to the matter.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2002) Background Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, unsuccessfully applied to the University of Michigan Law School with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161 in 1997. The Law School admitted that race plays a role in the admissions decisions because it helps to achieve diversity among the student body. Question Does the role of race in the admissions decisions at the University of Michigan’s Law School violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Answer No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated by the school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions in order to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The reasoning for such a decision was that with such highly individualized reviews of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is solely based on one variable such as race. Significance This case affirmed the right of schools to take race into consideration when making admissions decisions, so long as it serves a compelling interest to the school and does not unduly harm nonminority applicants. Policy Impact This allowed schools to continue its policies of taking race and ethnic backgrounds of applicants into consideration. Many colleges and universities had done so previously, and this case allowed them to continue this practice.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2002) Background In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. Two years later, Patrick Hamacher applied to the same University within adjusted GPA of 3.0 and an ACT score of 28. Both were denied admission to the school. The school stated that race plays a part in determining admittance of applicants, because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." Additionally, the University stated it has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are a part of three racial minority ethnicities that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus: African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. Question Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Answer In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions did in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause as well as Title VI. While the Court maintained that diversity can constitute a compelling state interest and be a factor in the admissions decisions, it reasoned that the automatic distribution of one fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission to an applicant solely because of race was not narrowly tailored, and is therefore unconstitutional. Significance In this case, the Court decided that the school put too much emphasis on race in undergraduate admissions, forcing this school and schools around the country to change their admissions process. Policy impact Although schools were required to not let race play such a large role in the admissions process, many still attempted to justify their methods in ways not discussed in this case. Otherwise, schools changed their admissions process to adapt to these requirements.

Ricci v. DeStefano (2008) AP Gov Units: Unit 5: Civil Liberties Keywords: Title 9, discrimination, 14th Amendment Mnemonic Device: Background: Nineteen white and two Hispanic firefighters from New Haven, CT brought up a lawsuit against the state for allegedly not certifying them for a promotion because more black firefighters were needed. They passed all needed exams for the promotion, but no black candidates scored high enough marks so the city of New Haven invalidated the test. The plaintiffs claimed this was a violation of their Title 9 rights and brought it to court. Question: Can a municipality (like the New Haven Civil Service Board) reject results from an otherwise valid civil service exam when the results unintentionally prevent the promotion of minority candidates? Answer: No, the decision of the city to invalidate the exam was discriminating against those qualified, and they did not have the right to adjust the results to cater to the black proportion of the firefighters. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that, although there were "substantial flaws" in the exam, the city's decision was in violation of Title 9. Significance: New Haven reinstated the examination results and promoted 14 of the 20 firefighters within months of the decision. The city settled the lawsuit by paying $2 million to the firefighter plaintiffs, and enhancing their pension benefits by millions of dollars. This set the standard for how municipalities abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Policy Impact: Cities like New Haven have to have a "strong basis in evidence" when taking the action of disqualifying test results, and they can't base it on race, gender, national origin, etc) Source of information: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_1428

Hollingsworth v. Perry (2012) AP Gov Units: Chapter 6: Civil LibertiesKeywords: Equal Rights Amendment, Equal Protection Clause Mnemonic Device: Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman Background: During the year of 2000, the state of California “passed Proposition 22, which affirmed a legal understanding that marriage was a union between one man and one woman.” In 2008, courts in California called for the word “marriage” to consider “same-sex couples,” which was “invalidate Proposition 22.” Then later in the same year, Proposition 8 was passed which called for “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized by California.” Gay and lesbian couples reacted by suing “state officials responsible for the enforcement of California’s marriage laws and claimed that Proposition 8 violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. State officials stated that they would not be able to “defend Proposition 8.” Therefore, the district argued that Proposition 8 failed to stay true to the Constitution. Question: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Answer: " In Perry v. Hollingsworth, super lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies successfully challenged Prop 8—both the district court and the federal appeals court agreed that the law had violated the Constitution". "The court has now given itself the opportunity to rule that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution, full stop". While courts are arguing that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of man one woman, there are still many individuals that believe their rights are being violated. Federal judges are also stating that Prop 8 is not constitutional and under the constitution, individuals have the right to marry anybody they want. Significance: With the Equal Rights Amendment, individuals are allowed to marry anybody they want and not be discriminated by others. Specifically in California, they "are required to allow same-sex couples to marry, just as they are required to allow, say, interracial couples to marry". Policy Impact: After the ruling of this case, same-sex marriages have been reconsidered. Under the constitution people have the right to get married to any sex.While there are still many cases that have to do with same-sex marriages, the nation knows that when telling someone that they can not get married to someone, they are violating their fourteenth amendment rights. Today, new laws are being created and the concept of marriage is still in the air. The government does not clearly know how to settle such cases. Source of information: www.oyez.org, []

Civil Liberties

media type="youtube" key="NrCD3oqj-OQ" height="439" width="784" align="center"

Works Cited Cheryl Hopwood vs. State of Texas." - Page 1. N.p., 25 Nov. 1997. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. . "City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company | Casebriefs." Casebriefs. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. . Hirshman, Linda. "The Supreme Court Opens the Door to a Landmark Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 07 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. . "Latest Stories from ISCOTUSnow." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. . Liptak, Adam. "Justices Take Up Race as a Factor In College Entry." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-

Additional Source [|http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-to-hear-case-on-affirmative-action-in-higher-education.html]