The basic logic here is you identify sources of exclusion. That could be something like racism, it could be something like sexism, and then you capture them. You know that sexism matters, and so you account for it by attending to gender. And so that’s one reason why white women, just descriptively, are arguably the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action.

e) Because the Law School’s use of race in admissions decisions is not prohibited by Equal Protection Clause, petitioner’s statutory claims based on Title VI and §1981 also fail. See Bakke, supra, at 287 (opinion of Powell, J.); General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389—391. Pp. 31—32.Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College". SCOTUSblif . Retrieved June 30, 2023. Are these the 23 ugliest cars ever made? Gran Turismo movie review The 31 most ridiculous car names ever › More here... They both have holistic admission. So for every student, they consider a range of factors. One factor is the student’s racial identity. This sort of policy is supported by 40 years of Supreme Court precedent that says you can do precisely what these two institutions are doing so long as it’s in a holistic sort of process. BU Today: Another big case in this legal history is Grutter v. Bollinger, which the Court decided in 2003. Can you explain that case and what the Court’s holding was? In sum, the University of Michigan cases make clear that promoting diversity in higher education can justify race-conscious admissions policies when they are carefully designed and consider race as part of a flexible and individualized review of all applicants. In ruling that the promotion of diversity is a compelling interest, the Supreme Court’s decisions resolve a disagreement among the lower federal courts and allow selective colleges and universities throughout the country to employ race in admissions. The decisions reject the absolute race-blind approach to higher education admissions advanced by the Grutter and Gratz plaintiffs and by the U.S. government and others as amici curiae. The Court’s decisions also effectively overrule major portions of the 1996 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Hopwood v. Texas, and will allow colleges and universities in the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Missouri to use race-conscious admissions policies designed to advance educational diversity. State universities in California, Washington, and Florida are still prohibited under their state laws from employing race-conscious admissions policies; however, private universities in those states can, as they could before the Grutter and Gratz decisions, employ properly designed race-conscious policies.

Munro aims to begin production of the Mk_1 outside Glasgow later in 2023 and in doing so become the first volume car producer in Scotland since Peugeot-Talbot shuttered its Linwood plant in 1981. Despite the claimed similarities between the Bollinger B1 and the Munro Mk_1, legal precedent may not be on Bollinger’s side in the case. The decision largely upheld the position asserted in Justice Powell's concurrence in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy, but held that quotas were illegal. [ citation needed]

Supreme Court will consider challenge to affirmative action in college admissions". NBC News. January 24, 2022. Affirmative action in higher education is alive and well. In today’s decisions involving the University of Michigan’s race-conscious affirmative action policies, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ringing endorsement of the value of diversity in preparing students for the challenges of American life. As the Court stated in Grutter v. Bollinger: “Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.” The Court has also provided a clear statement about the appropriate use of race in admissions, holding that the individualized consideration of race must be the hallmark of a carefully designed admissions policy that promotes educational diversity.

Bollinger accuses Munro of infringing on two of its patents, both of which cover “an original and unique vehicle design” and which “feature exposed hardware and hinges, extensive use of flat surfaces, aesthetic chamfered surfaces, flat and parallel body lines, and a distinctive wheel arch shape.”When the Law School denied admission to petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. The District Court found the Law School’s use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a “potential ‘plus’ factor” and because the Law School’s program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion.