Not out of the woods yet. (Last Word).(Affirmative action rulings leave opening for further debate)(Gratz v. Bollinger case cited)

From: Black Issues in Higher Education | Date: July 17, 2003| Author: Collier, Willyerd R., Sr. | Copyright information

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan had a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, critics of affirmative action have been handed a major defeat in their ongoing efforts to block race-sensitive programs designed to address the practice or lingering effect of racial discrimination in America. However, if the press reports from representatives of the Center for Indivi...

Read all of this article with a FREE trial to HighBeam Research

Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles from HighBeam Research

Affirmative action.
Yale Law Journal ; Affirmative action is so burning it's boring. Why? Partly because so much of what one sees and hears on the subject smacks of hypocrisy or speaking in code. Exhibit A: the name of California's affirmative-action-killing referendum, the Civil Rights Initiative. Exhibit B: the term affirmative
Affirmative action and affirming diversity.
Public Management ; Has It Been Effective At the Local Level Affirmative action was created 30 years ago as a remedy for the underuse of minority and female human resources in the workplace and classroom. The term refers to active measures and passive nondiscrimination as means of increasing significantly the
No Mortal Threat to Affirmative Action
The Washington Post ; This week's Supreme Court decision toughening the standards for federal affirmative action contracts does just that: It does not end affirmative action, nor does it put an end to the national conversation we ought to have about what kind of society we want and how to get there. Writing for the
Death by judges: affirmative action.
The Economist (US) ; SO FAR this year everyone and his mother has had something to say-- loudly--about affirmative action. Yet all their words are mere prattle compared with those uttered on June 12th by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the court dealt a sharp blow to the legal foundations of the network of
Affirmative action and legislative purpose. (response to Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law Journal, vol. 107, p. 427, 1997)
Yale Law Journal ; Jed Rubenfeld argues that the Supreme Court misunderstands the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause when it subjects minority preferences to strict (and almost always fatal) judicial scrutiny.(1) His argument is quite simple: Strict scrutiny's function is smoking out constitutionally illicit