- Mar 12, 2014
- Reaction score
"The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The Court held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use"."
Prior to this case, the "compelling interest" required to justify affirmative action has been correcting the effects of historic discrimination. Put another way, affirmative action was intended to "benefit" black people or other groups facing historic discrimination.
By contrast, in the majority decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the compelling interest at hand lay in "obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Two cases in 2003 involving the University of Michigan found that the university's policy of granting extra points to minorities for undergraduate admissions was unconstitutional (Gratz v. Bollinger) but that a program which gave holistic consideration for being a certain racial minority, though not an automatic boost, in admissions to the law school was constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger).
"The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."
read my post here,
I am glad that you admit that my way is the way to do thing (in the perfect world or whatever) lol
all kidding asides, you are right that not all discrimination is illegal. However, discrimination in education and employment by not letting ALL people to compete fairly and equally under the same rule and treatment) are ILLEGAL discrimination, esp when you are using double standard to favor some particular groups of your choosing to not let everyone to compete fairly and equally.
This applies to med school admission and Hooter's employment policy. I do not know about other Hooters but I am sure Hooters of America is an equal opportunity employer. Or at least they are claiming for
I hate to write long so I suggest you google for your info. Plenty of cases and info you can read about this issue.