• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

reverse discrimination

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

1

1L

Guest
I am a 1L at a private law school and I have a question about some practices and programs that occur at my school. There are special weekly tutoring sessions, exam-help sessions and course outlines that are given only to the "minority students" at my school. I have seen some of the outlines they receive, and to be candid, these people are essentially being given model answers for exams, practice questions, etc. I have no problem with minority groups and organizations, but several other classmates have noticed how unfair these particular practices are, and it is giving these people what seems to me and others an extremely unfair advantage. I am aware that schools have to be politically correct, but is there anything I can do about this? I'm unsure of the law in this area, but if anyone can give my any information at all I would really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks!
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
My response:

We'd like to assist you; however, you apparently didn't see that red writing up at the top of the page. Without your State name, or the name of the State where the problem happened, it would be difficult to assist you. Laws are different everywhere.

Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to you editing your post.

IAAL

P.S. What's a 1L ?
 
1

1L

Guest
I apologize. It is a NY school, and a 1L is short for 1st year law student. Thanks!
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
1L said:
I am a 1L at a private law school and I have a question about some practices and programs that occur at my school. There are special weekly tutoring sessions, exam-help sessions and course outlines that are given only to the "minority students" at my school. I have seen some of the outlines they receive, and to be candid, these people are essentially being given model answers for exams, practice questions, etc. I have no problem with minority groups and organizations, but several other classmates have noticed how unfair these particular practices are, and it is giving these people what seems to me and others an extremely unfair advantage. I am aware that schools have to be politically correct, but is there anything I can do about this? I'm unsure of the law in this area, but if anyone can give my any information at all I would really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks!

My response:

It is important to find out if your school receives Federal funds. If your school relies on Federal funds, then you may, in fact have a Title VI action because you are entitled, by Constitutional mandate, to equal protection under the law - - and, ergo, an equal education. If your school relies soley upon tuition and gifts of money for its income, then your alternative is to quit.

Federal law and regulations require the defendants to provide educational services to students in a nondiscriminatory manner.

The United States Congress has prohibited those receiving federal funds from operating educational programs that discriminate against persons on the basis of race, color or national origin. Specifically, section 2000-d of the Title 42 of the United States Code, commonly known as "Title VI," provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

A regulation promulgated pursuant to Title VI provides that "a recipient, in determining the types of services, financial aid, or other benefits which will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations in which, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or facilities will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such program, may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects to individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin."

It might be a good idea for you to have a full and frank discussion with an ACLU attorney.

IAAL
 
1

1L

Guest
Thanks IAAL...I will definitely take up your suggestion! It really helped!
 
J

jajamase

Guest
Save up a couple of bucks and buy copies "those people" use. Now you have a level playing field.
 
1

1L

Guest
I found your response ignorant. I have no problem whatsoever with "those people" and I would never refer to them that way. I'm not interested in getting the advantage. I'm interested solely in the principal of the issue; no one should be getting them at all. Don't be so quick to judge.
 
J

Jack Mevorach, Esq.

Guest
Many people think that "affirmative action" is nothing more than "reverse discrimination". Whatever the case may be, past wrongs must be corrected. I'm not sure how to do it.
 
M

minerk

Guest
Past wrongs must be corrected at the expense of individuals who did not commit the wrong? I strongly disagree.
 
J

Jack Mevorach, Esq.

Guest
I did not write that past wrongs should be corrected at the expense of those who did not commit the wrongs. However, if everyone who committed the past wrongs is dead, what shall we do? Do you agree that past wrongs should be corrected, or do we bury them along with those who committed them?
 
M

minerk

Guest
At what point do we decide that the wrongs have been corrected? Is it when the playing field has been levelled, or is it when the tables are turned and white people suffer at least some portion of the discrimination that minorities have suffered?

If we go with the former then I would say that the wrongs have been corrected to the extent that they can be. Essentially the same opportunities are available to everyone, and the continuation of affimative action is in effect reverse discrimination.

If I did not commit the wrong, and I am not receiving any benefit from the wrong, why should I suffer to correct the wrong any further than to level the field.

The biggest problem with this debate is that it cannot be discussed openly without someone screaming racism.
 
1

1L

Guest
The presumption that anyone who opposses affirmative action is a racist at the core overwhelmes the position that affirmative action is no longer serving its original purpose -- to "level the field". The field has been more than leveled. Just look at the endless amount of legislation, government and privately funded programs that exist to benefit groups traditionally discriminated against. The wrongs that have occurred are far in the past and while they should not be forgotten it has come to a point where the remedy works injustice against people who simply took no part in it. Is it really fundamentally fair that I must watch people be literally handed over work opportunities and given multiple educational advantages EVERY DAY while I am forbidden from receiving any of them merely because I am not of a particular race or creed? If we are all equal, and I firmly believe we are, than how can that possibly be consistent?
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
1L said:
The presumption that anyone who opposses affirmative action is a racist at the core overwhelmes the position that affirmative action is no longer serving its original purpose -- to "level the field". The field has been more than leveled. Just look at the endless amount of legislation, government and privately funded programs that exist to benefit groups traditionally discriminated against. The wrongs that have occurred are far in the past and while they should not be forgotten it has come to a point where the remedy works injustice against people who simply took no part in it. Is it really fundamentally fair that I must watch people be literally handed over work opportunities and given multiple educational advantages EVERY DAY while I am forbidden from receiving any of them merely because I am not of a particular race or creed? If we are all equal, and I firmly believe we are, than how can that possibly be consistent?

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, case decided in 1978 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court held in a closely divided decision that race could be one of the factors considered in choosing a diverse student body in university admissions decisions. The Court also held, however, that the use of quotas in such affirmative action programs was not permissible; thus the Univ. of California, Davis, medical school had, by maintaining a 16% minority quota, discriminated against Allan Bakke,. 1940–, a white applicant. The legal implications of the decision were clouded by the Court's division. Bakke had twice been rejected by the medical school, even though he had a higher grade point average than a number of minority candidates who were admitted. As a result of the decision, Bakke was admitted to the medical school and graduated in 1992.


Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education Since Bakke

Time Magazine called it "the most important civil rights case in a generation." Newsweek predicted it would have "more impact on equality for minorities, for women and, of course, for white males than any judgment since Brown v. Board of Education," and warned that it could "gut affirmative action programs nationwide."

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke seemed the favorite topic for the news media when the case came before the US Supreme Court in October 1977. Despite threats over its consequences, however, Bakke failed to have the profound effect many had forecast.

The ruling did not "gut affirmative action." Rather, affirmative action has remained viable in college and university admissions, as well as in employment, since the Supreme Court rendered the Bakke decision in June 1978.

Why, then, did Bakke fail to live up to its potential? Does it have any significance in the law of affirmative action? How is it relevant to current legal battles over diversity in higher education?


The Bakke Case

Allan Bakke had been an honor student in college and, later, a space-agency engineer before he decided, at age 32, to become a medical doctor. He applied twice for entry to the medical school at the University of California at Davis; the school denied his application both times. Bakke later learned that his college grades and aptitude test scores were higher than those of others who had nevertheless gained admission. The reason for his rejection, Bakke concluded, was that he was white, while some of the successful applicants were not.

The medical schools admissions procedures included a quota system for applicants who were members of "minority groups": Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. A specified number of spots in every entering class were reserved for such applicants; the school admitted some members of the minority groups even though their grades and test scores were lower than the cutoff applicable to non-minorities.

Bakke sued the University of California, claiming violation of his rights under both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution.

By the time Bakke's case reached the US Supreme Court, nearly 60 organizations had submitted amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" briefs, court pleadings filed not by the parties to the lawsuit, but by various groups interested in its result.

Ultimately, five members of the nine-justice Court found the medical school's quota system unlawful. While a majority of the Court agreed upon such a judgment in Bakke's case, however, no majority could agree upon an opinion (a statement by the Court expounding on the law and detailing reasons for the judgment).

That a decision of the US Supreme Court includes no majority opinion is unusual; typically, a majority of the Court can reach a consensus on the reasons underlying a judgment. As the Justices could not agree on a majority opinion, Bakke did not come to be the conclusive statement on so-called "reverse discrimination" many had expected.

While Bakke offers no majority opinion, an opinion by Justice Powell "announced" the judgment of the Court. Accordingly, his views are most often quoted as legal authority on three issues surrounding affirmative action admissions policies in higher education:

Diversity. Justice Powell found a diverse student body to be a "constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education," and declared that "the nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples."

Racial and ethnic quotas. Justice Powell rejected quotas, however, as a means of achieving diversity; he termed such a mechanism "facially invalid."

"Preferring members of any one group," Justice Powell wrote, "for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake."

Race as a factor in admissions. Quotas, according to Justice Powell, are not a "necessary means" to diversity among students at a college or university. Rather, race or ethnic background could be deemed a "'plus' in a particular applicants file."

"The file of a particular black applicant" he wrote, "may be examined for his potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-American if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to promote beneficial educational pluralism."

Diversity on Campus

Though not coauthored by a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke has guided institutions of higher education in the crafting of their affirmative action enrollment policies. While quotas are generally disfavored, race and ethnicity have been approved as valid, but not decisive, factors in admissions.

Perhaps the most fundamental holding to result from Bakke has been Justice Powells statement that diversity among a student population is a legitimate and desirable goal. On March 18, 1996, however, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit defied that holding in the most notorious lawsuit over affirmative action in higher education since Bakke.

The case is Hopwood v. State of Texas, a challenge by four white applicants who were denied admission to the University of Texas School of Law. The schools affirmative action policy prescribed different grade and aptitude, test requirements particularly for black and Mexican/American applicants. Under the policy, a black or Mexican-American applicant could be virtually assured acceptance with scores that, if presented by a white applicant, likely would result in denial of admission.

The Hopwood plaintiffs, as Bakke, claimed violations of their rights under Title VI and the equal protection clause. The Fifth Circuit Court, an appellate division of the federal system comprised of Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, ruled in the plaintiffs favor. The Hopwood court doubted the significance of Justice Powells opinion (most notably, his approval of racial and ethnic diversity in higher education), remarking that his "view in Bakke is not binding precedent on this issue." It further held, however, that "the classification of persons on the basis of race for the purpose of diversity frustrates, rather than facilitates, the goals of equal protection."

Last July, the US Supreme Court denied the University of Texass request that it review the Court of Appeals ruling in Hopwood. Thus, while the Hopwood decision is binding in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, it is not necessarily the law in the rest of the country.

The news medias forecasts regarding Bakke prove the need for caution in predicting Hopwood's importance. Most colleges and universities likely will, at least for the time being, continue to follow the reasoning Justice Powell suggested in Bakke. The twenty year span between Bakke and Hopwood does attest, however, to the continuing furor over affirmative action in higher education, as well as to the difficulty of race and ethnic based classifications in academic programs.
 

jyoung

Member
it's become common knowledge that in a short time white european males will no longer be in the majority in this country, for our children's and grandchildren's sake let's hope that the efforts and gains made toward leveling the playing field in the last half of the twentieth century
will be a model for future legislators...
 

LegalBeagle

Senior Member
There is a case pending in MI for the same thing. Yet again white students were denied over lesser qualified non-whites.

Living down in Miami, there is one thing I noticed. That is the incoming non-white population have no love for the whites and will never introduce any programs to help the soon to be white minorities. The average, middle class white male is going to have a hell of a time in the future in states like, FL, TX and CA.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top