1. Is the Bruin Diversity Plan constitutional according to the Equal Protection Clause, strict scrutiny, and the Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger cases? Your response should include a summary of the basic facts and holding of the Grutter and Gratz cases and clearly apply the legal test of strict scrutiny to the Bruin Diversity Plan.
The “Bruin Diversity” plan is a proposed admission policy that’s goal is to promote greater student body diversity. The “Bruin Diversity” plan has four stated goals. Goals that aim to reduce historic deficit of ethnic minority groups, to remedy the effects of societal discrimination of ethnic minority groups, to increase the number of professionals who will practice in underserved communities, and to obtain an ethnically diverse student body. The “Bruin Diversity” admission process will utilize a “Selection Index” (point system). The ethnic minority applicants will also receive an extra 20 points and be evaluated by a special committee. Approximately 33% of all admission slots will be given to ethnic minority groups, thanks to …show more content…
Bollinger case left was not always the case. There was a time in Affirmative Action history in which diversity served a compelling interest. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Bakke a non-minority individual was denied admission from the University of California Davis, Medical school. He was denied admission twice even though he was highly qualified. Bakke, therefore sued the UC Regents arguing that the special admission program which reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class of minorities and the 84 for its regular applicants was unconstitutional and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that the University’s use of racial quotas the (16 reserved seat) was unconstitutional. The court also ruled that race may be considered a factor in the university admission process to promote school