that considers a broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial origin is but a single though important element. Thomas dissent: no academic benefit to this. AA does not help minorities b/c they are less prepared for academic rigors. Policy behind affirmative action: Costs of affirmative action: Dissent from Grutter. Discrimination against whites, Asian-Americans: Stigma: Those who succeeded w/o affirmative action suffer b/c assumption is that blacks are using affirmative action. Entitlement and dependency: Won’t work as hard, rely on affirmative action Racial tension: resentment by whites Decreased success: Will do in the future if admitted on affirmative action and scores are lower than average. Tend to have lower scores/GPAs, are not as prepared as the rest of their classmates, so tend to get lower grades, end up with fewer opportunities Self-esteem Judicial analyst: Should the court be more lenient to laws that are facially race based but intend to benefit minorities? Textualism: No The court says that it should be strict scrutiny—a law that gives a benefit to one race at the expense of another should be subject to higher scrutiny—does not matter which race. Originalism: Yes Historical records of reconstruction shows laws passed that provide benefits to minorities—difference between burdening and benefitting Cuts in favor of low scrutiny Political Process: no The burden that the majority is imposing on itself is to benefit the minority so judicial involvement is not necessary Precedent: maybe In race discrimination case law precedent is not clear does not say law is color blind, but did adopt Harlan’s dissent from Plessy Brown Plessy. VII. Gender Discrimination: Subjected to intermediate scrutiny Analysis: Standard of Review: A law will be upheld if it to an substantially related important government interest Must be more than just a legitimate goal for the government to pursue: court has to regard the purpose as important, but less than compelling. Requires an exceedingly pervasive justification (Plus): Intermediate Scrutiny for gender discrimination. VMI. Ends: Must be more than legitimate, but does not have to be compelling. Acceptable: Reflects real biological differences: The court has consistently upheld statutes where general classifications is not invidious but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. Michael M. Fact patterns upheld:
that considers a broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial origin is but a single though important element. Thomas dissent: no academic benefit to this. AA does not help minorities b/c they are less prepared for academic rigors. Policy behind affirmative action: Costs of affirmative action: Dissent from Grutter. Discrimination against whites, Asian-Americans: Stigma: Those who succeeded w/o affirmative action suffer b/c assumption is that blacks are using affirmative action. Entitlement and dependency: Won’t work as hard, rely on affirmative action Racial tension: resentment by whites Decreased success: Will do in the future if admitted on affirmative action and scores are lower than average. Tend to have lower scores/GPAs, are not as prepared as the rest of their classmates, so tend to get lower grades, end up with fewer opportunities Self-esteem Judicial analyst: Should the court be more lenient to laws that are facially race based but intend to benefit minorities? Textualism: No The court says that it should be strict scrutiny—a law that gives a benefit to one race at the expense of another should be subject to higher scrutiny—does not matter which race. Originalism: Yes Historical records of reconstruction shows laws passed that provide benefits to minorities—difference between burdening and benefitting Cuts in favor of low scrutiny Political Process: no The burden that the majority is imposing on itself is to benefit the minority so judicial involvement is not necessary Precedent: maybe In race discrimination case law precedent is not clear Plessy does not say law is color blind, but Brown did adopt Harlan’s dissent from Plessy. VII. Gender Discrimination: Subjected to intermediate scrutiny Analysis: Standard of Review: A law will be upheld if it substantially related to an important government interest Must be more than just a legitimate goal for the government to pursue: court has to regard the purpose as important, but less than compelling. Intermediate Scrutiny (Plus): Requires an exceedingly pervasive justification for gender discrimination. VMI. Ends: Must be more than legitimate, but does not have to be compelling. Acceptable: Reflects real biological differences: The court has consistently upheld statutes where general classifications is not invidious but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances. Michael M. Fact patterns upheld: