Law Commons^™

The Diversity Rationale For Affirmative Action In Military Contracting, Hugh B. Mcclean

Catholic University Law Review

Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (the ‘‘8(a) program’’) is a federal contracting program that permits the government to award certain contracts to members of designated racial groups that own small businesses. Courts have denied facial challenges to the program, but have upheld challenges alleging the program is unconstitutional as applied to particular industries. As a result, the military is banned from using the program in at least one industry, and inherits significant risk when using the program in other industries. The government has never articulated a diversity rationale to justify the use of race-conscious measures in the military …

Analyzing The Roles Of Law And Politics In Judicial Decision Making: Predicting U.S. Supreme Court Justices’ Votes On A Case Of Affirmative Action, Ashley Renkor

The Eastern Illinois University Political Science Review

This study seeks to study relevant precedent cases concerning affirmative action, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, the 5th Amendment equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with the goal of predicting how certain justices will vote in the affirmative action case, Fisher vs. the University of Texas at Austin. I conclude that justices will debate numerous aspects at play, such as original intent, plain meaning, precedent, policy preferences, public opinion, personal experience, the federal government, and interest groups in order to take positions in the Fisher case for the second time around with an intent …

Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin: Navigating The Narrows Between Grutter And Parents Involved, Kimberly A. Pacelli

Maine Law Review

Universities’ use of race as a factor in their admissions decisions has been a divisive issue both in the legal system and in political discourse. Opponents of affirmative action have challenged racial preferences in public university admissions under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Individuals who find themselves denied a coveted seat in a university class and suspect that racial preferences are to blame will often challenge their rejection as a denial of their state’s “equal protection of the laws.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently considered whether the University of Texas at …

A Diverse Student Body Without Student Bodies?: Online Classrooms And Affirmative Action, Ryan H. Nelson

Pepperdine Law Review

America’s public universities engage students in myriad classroom environments that range from traditional, entirely-in-person classroom environments to entirely-online, virtual classrooms, with every shade of grey in between. These varied learning environments pose a fascinating question with respect to the ways such universities use affirmative action in admissions. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court held that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” Indeed, student body diversity remains one of the few “compelling interests” that the Court has held satisfies the constitutional imperative that the “government may …

A Constitutional And Efficacious Analysis Of Affirmative Action Policies, Jeff Longust

Pepperdine Policy Review

After several Supreme Court cases, university admissions processes, and state/federal policies, affirmative action programs are under several layers of scrutiny. This paper explores how court precedent and research studies have both shaped policies and raised substantive questions about whether or not these programs are effective and equitable.

Qualitative Diversity: Affirmative Action’S New Reframe, Eang L. Ngov

Utah Law Review

How is diversity measured? When is diversity sufficient? The Supreme Court has pressed these hard questions in affirmative action cases. With respect to college admissions, although a university campus might have a diverse student body, universities are beginning to justify the continuation of race-based affirmative action programs on the need for qualitative diversity, i.e., intraracial diversity—diversity within diversity.

In the Court’s most recent affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the university advanced two novel diversity arguments, never before employed in affirmative action cases, to justify its race-based admissions policy: there is a lack of diversity within …

Reason And Reasonableness: The Necessary Diversity Of The Common Law, Frederic G. Sourgens

Maine Law Review

This Article addresses the central concept of “reasonableness” in the common law and constitutional jurisprudence. On the basis of three examples, the common law of torts, the common law of contracts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Article notes that different areas of the law follow fundamentally inconsistent utilitarian, pragmatic, and formalist reasonableness paradigms. The significance of this diversity of reasonableness paradigms remains largely under-theorized. This Article submits that the diversity of reasonableness paradigms is a necessary feature of the common law. It theorizes that the utilitarian, pragmatic and formalistic paradigms are structural elements driving the common law norm-generation process. This …

Embracing Race-Conscious College Admissions Programs: How Fisher V. University Of Texas At Austin Redefines "Affirmative Action" As A Holistic Approach To Admissions That Ensures Equal, Not Preferential, Treatment, Nancy L. Zisk

Marquette Law Review

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the United States Supreme Court affirmed well-established Supreme Court doctrine that race may be considered when a college or university decides whom to admit and whom to reject, as long as the consideration of race is part of a narrowly tailored holistic consideration of an applicant's many distinguishing features. The Court's latest decision heralds a new way of thinking about holistic race-conscious admissions programs. Rather than considering them as "affirmative action" plans that prefer any one applicant to the disadvantage of another, they should be viewed as the Court has described …