scholarly journals Perspectives on Affirmative Action in Academic Dental Institutions: The U.S. Supreme Court Rulings in the University of Michigan Cases

2004 ◽  
Vol 68 (9) ◽  
pp. 932-937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie R. Peterson ◽  
Joan E. Kowolik ◽  
Gary Coleman ◽  
Susan Dietrich ◽  
Ana Karina Mascarenhas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

Case Study 2: The Fisher Supreme Court Cases against the University of Texas at Austin

2020 ◽  
pp. 155-188
Author(s):  
J. Scott Carter ◽  
Cameron D. Lippard
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
University Of Texas ◽  
Admissions Policies ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

This chapter looks at the most recent case to challenge affirmative action in college admissions policies in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin (2013 and 2016). Like chapter 5, the purpose of this chapter is to understand precisely what supporters and opponents are saying about the controversial policy. That is, how are they framing the debate surrounding affirmative action. However, this chapter looks at how framing may have changed over a decade later. We again focus on amicus briefs submitted by social authorities to the U.S. Supreme Court who had interests in the outcome of the cases. While we were interested in variation in types of frames used in these two cases (Fisher I and II) relative to the Gratz and Grutter cases, we mainly focused on authors continued use of both color-blind and group threat frames to state their positions. While some nuanced changes were observed from Gratz/Grutter to Fisher, our findings revealed a great deal of consistency from case to case and that the briefs continued to rely on color-blind and threat frames to characterize the policy. Particularly among opponents’ briefs, threat frames suggested that whites, in general, were losing in a country consumed by liberal agendas of diversification and entitlements only afforded to unqualified and ill-prepared non-whites.

Gratz v. Bollinger

2020 ◽  
pp. 215-242
Author(s):  
Matthew Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Racial Justice ◽  
Undergraduate Admissions ◽  
Business Interests ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Selective Incorporation ◽  
The University

This chapter studies Gratz v. Bollinger, which challenged the racially attentive undergraduate admissions practices of the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts in the University of Michigan (UM). Grutter v. Bollinger, which challenged the Law School's admissions practices, was filed soon thereafter. These cases put UM on a crash course with the Supreme Court. The chapter then highlights UM's defense of affirmative action, showing how the university's co-optation of racial justice aligned with the rightward shift of the Supreme Court since the 1980s. UM leaders' preference for diversity over the social justice rationale, their discomfort with enrollment targets, their efforts to make affirmative action serve business interests, and their selective incorporation of social science that promoted the benefits of interracial contact all made UM's chances of swaying at least one conservative justice more likely.

Case Study 1: The Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court Cases against the University of Michigan

2020 ◽  
pp. 115-154
Author(s):  
J. Scott Carter ◽  
Cameron D. Lippard
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Higher Education Admissions ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Color Blind ◽  
The University

The purpose of this chapter is to understand arguments put forth by these social authorities (individuals and groups) in support and opposition to affirmative action within a prominent debate on affirmative action in higher education admissions. We are particularly interested in advocacy groups that have the ability and resources not afforded to most individuals to lobby the Supreme Court. We used the Gratz v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter v. Bollinger et al. U.S. Supreme Court cases as the site of the first case study. We look at how these entities deployed specific arguments and rhetoric within court documents to frame affirmative action to Supreme Court Justices. In particular, while all frames were considered, we look at two discursive frames prominent in the literature and how they were used by supporters and opponents of the policy: color-blind and threat frames. Findings demonstrate that while supporters often used color-blind arguments (and some threat as well), the opponent briefs were saturated with both color-blind frames.

Sustaining Racial Retrenchment

2020 ◽  
pp. 164-187
Author(s):  
Matthew Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Black Students ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
University Of Michigan ◽  
Student Body ◽  
New Policies ◽  
The University ◽  
Corporate Model

This chapter describes how the University of Michigan (UM) leaders fought to preserve the new affirmative action policies. In this context, diversity—the idea that a racially heterogeneous student body improved education and prepared students for a multiracial democracy and global economy—became a tool to defend and sustain the new policies. Diversity helped sever the purpose of affirmative action from addressing the inequality rooted in cities, offered ambiguous goals that helped officials avoid accountability, and advanced administrators' interests in introducing a corporate model for the university. The diversity ideal, in other words, did not spark racial retrenchment. Instead, diversity became a tool to sustain the university's policies of retrenchment. Administrators still had to work to retain control over the meaning of diversity and ensure it supported the new policies. When diversity took hold among administrators, black students and their allies tried to employ diversity language to undermine the policies of retrenchment. Administrators ensured that never happened.

Legislative Department

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The State ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
The U.S

This chapter assesses Article V of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the legislative department. Section 1 states that “the Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” However, “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature.” Section 2 provides for the designation and definition of reserved powers. Initiative means the power of the people to propose bills, and to enact or reject them at the polls. Referendum is the right of the people to have bills passed by the legislature submitted to the voters for their approval. Meanwhile, in May 1964, the Oklahoma constitution was amended to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The amendment passed and Sections 9 through 16 were replaced with Sections 9A through 11E. The chapter then details the provisions for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document