•  
  •  
 

Document Type

Article

Media Type

Text

Abstract

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court recently upheld the use of race in academic admissions programs while apparently setting a twenty-five year time limit on its use. The Court's opinion creates a paradox as the reasoning allowing race to be used in admissions programs contradicts a time limit for such programs. The Court found achieving a diverse student body to be a compelling state interest justifying race-conscious admissions programs. The benefits of diversity that the Court mentioned (better race relations, better learning outcomes, better professionals and better leaders) will still exist in twenty-five years, thus, the apparent time limit seems incorrect. Furthermore, the Court incorrectly concludes equal protection's purpose was to provide colorblindness and equal protection's norm is to provide colorblindness. Equal protection law is actually designed to protect minorities and provide colorblindness and throughout history race-conscious laws have constantly been utilized, thus, race-consciousness and not colorblindness is the historical norm. Finally, the Court concludes the remedial effect of race-conscious programs will determine their fate, although remedying past discrimination was not a compelling interest justifying the admissions programs and a consensus exists that racial equality will not exist in twenty-five years.

First Page

753

Last Page

787

Publication Date

7-1-2004

Department

Other

ISSN

0734-1490

Language

eng

Publisher

Northern Illinois University Law Review

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.