Law Commons^™

White Interests And Civil Rights Realism: Rodrigo's Bittersweet Epiphany, Richard Delgado

Michigan Law Review

I had just settled down, taken off my tie, and was about to go over the two-page handout entitled "Information for Wedding Parties " that the minister of the small church had handed me minutes earlier, when I heard a knock and familiar voice from the other side of the anteroom door.

Brief For Respondents, Grutter V. Bollinger, 539 Us 306 (2003) (No. 02-241)., Maureen E. Mahoney, Evan Caminker, Marvin Krislov, Jonathan Alger, Philip J. Kessler, Leonard M. Niehoff, J. Scott Ballenger, Nathaniel A. Vitan, John H. Pickering, John Payton, Brigida Benitez, Stuart Delery, Craig Goldblatt, Anne Harkavy, Terry A. Maroney

Appellate Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether this Court should reaffirm its decision in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and hold that the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body to an institution of higher education, its students, and the public it serves, are sufficiently compelling to permit the school to consider race and/or ethnicity as one of many factors in making admissions decisions through a "properly devised" admissions program.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program is properly devised.

In The Supreme Court Of The United States Barbara Grutter, Petitioner, V. Lee Bollinger, Et Al., Respondents. On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit, Jerome S. Hirsch, Joseph N. Sacca, Scott D. Musoff, Mark Lebovitch, Linda M. Wayner

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Brief of the University of Michigan Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, the University of Michigan Black Law Students' Alliance, the University of Michigan Latino Law Students Association, and the University of Michigan Native American Law Students Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Prior inquiries into the relationship between equal protection and disparate impact have focused on whether equal protection entails a disparate impact standard and whether laws prohibiting disparate impacts can qualify as legislation enforcing equal rotection. In this Article, Professor Primus focuses on a third question: whether equal protection affirmatively forbids the use of statutory disparate impact standards. Like affirmative action, a statute restricting racially disparate impacts is a race-conscious mechanism designed to reallocate opportunities from some racial groups to others. Accordingly, the same individualist view of equal protection that has constrained the operation of affirmative action might also raise questions …