Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Plessy v. Ferguson

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Brown v. Board of Education

Grutter v Bollinger

Fourteenth Amendment

Tenth Amendment

First Amendment

Fifteenth Amendment

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The court decreed absolute color-blindness in admissions, reinforcing earlier decisions which banned any consideration of race altogether.

It established an expiry date for all affirmative action programs, after which they would need legislative renewal or termination.

The decision supported that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify using race as one factor among others in university admissions processes.

The ruling specified numerical targets for minority admissions as lawful if they are used flexibly and not as fixed quotas.

To guarantee job security for all employees regardless of their backgrounds.

To reduce unemployment rates among majority populations.

To improve diversity in workplaces, reflecting the diverse society we live in.

To ensure every company achieves an exact racial or gender balance.

Groups that do not require special consideration

Groups that are not affected by discrimination

Groups that have faced discrimination in the past

Groups that have always been overrepresented in society

Setting aside a certain number of seats strictly for minority students.

Using race as one factor among many in the college admissions process.

Instituting ethnic quotas in hiring practice.

Ensuring that half of all promoted employees are from underrepresented racial groups.

It ensures that all applicants are granted admission.

It protects schools from lawsuits for discrimination.

It guarantees equal results rather than equal opportunity.

It helps address historical and societal disadvantages faced by certain racial and ethnic groups.

They frequently argue that such policies should not consider race or ethnicity at all.

They often see it as an unfair advantage given to certain groups at the expense of meritocracy.

They may view it as a necessary measure to correct historical inequalities and promote diversity.

They might assert that private institutions should have complete autonomy over admission decisions without government interference.

Directly funneling additional resources into STEM fields assuming they provide universal benefit irrespective of demographic variables.

Conditionally increasing funds based upon institutions’ enrollment percentages of minority groups without regard for program content or outcomes.

Legislation can prioritize grants for programs shown empirically to enrich campus dialogues across diverse perspectives.

Providing uniform budget increases across all higher education institutions aiming at overall quality improvement rather than targeted diversity initiatives.