Equality of Results
vs
Equality of Opportunity
Andrew Adair
x
Michael Dotson
Equality of opportunity means that every
person is afforded the same access to a
benefit as every other person. Equality of
results means that every person actually
receives the same benefit as everyone
else.
Amendment XIV
Equal Protection Clause
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
• Summary: Everyone has equal protection under
national and state law
Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Since the Equal protection clause only grants equal
protection not equal rights this type of legislation
was passed in the 1960s
Video
Affirmative action was implemented to
ensure equal opportunity under the law
Supreme Court Cases
Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke
•
•
•
•
•
Petitioner: Regents of the
University of California
Respondent: Bakke
Decided By: Burger Court
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative
Action
Question: Did the University of
California violate the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection
clause, and the Civil Rights Act of
1964, by practicing an affirmative
action policy that resulted in the
repeated rejection of Bakke's
application for admission to its
medical school?
•
Decision: There was no single
majority opinion. One justice
argued that the rigid use of racial
quotas as employed at the school
violated the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The remaining four
justices held that the use of race
as a criterion in admissions
decisions in higher education was
constitutionally permissible.
Powell joined that opinion as well,
contending that the use of race
was permissible as one of several
admission criteria
United Steelworkers vs. Weber
•
•
•
Petitioner: United Steelworkers of
America
Respondent: Weber
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
•
Decision: No. The Court held that the
training scheme was legitimate
because the 1964 Act "did not intend
to prohibit the private sector from
taking effective steps" to implement
the goals of Title VII.
•
Question: Did United and Kaiser
Aluminum's training scheme violate
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
prohibiting discrimination on the basis
of race?
Richmond vs. Croson
•
•
•
Appellate: J.A. Croson Co.
Appellant: Richmond
Decided By: Rehnquist Court (19881990)
•
Question: Did the Richmond law
violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment?
•
Decision: Yes. the Court held that
"generalized assertions" of past racial
discrimination could not justify "rigid"
racial quotas for the awarding of public
contracts.
Grutter vs. Bollinger
•
•
•
•
Petitioner: Grutter
Respondent: Bollinger
Decided By: Rehnquist Court
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
•
Question: Does the University of
Michigan Law School's use of racial
preferences in student admissions
violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
•
Decision: No. the Court held that the
Equal Protection Clause does not
prohibit the Law School's narrowly
tailored use of race in admissions
decisions. The Court stated that since
a review of the applicants was
thorough, it was not based on race.
Gratz vs. Bollinger
•
•
Petitioner: Gratz
Respondent: Bollinger
•
Decided By: Rehnquist Court
•
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
•
Question: Does the University of
Michigan's use of racial preferences in
undergraduate admissions violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
•
Decision: Yes. the Court held that the
University of Michigan's use of racial
preferences in undergraduate
admissions violates both the Equal
Protection Clause and Title VI.
Texas vs. Lesage
•
•
Petitioner: Texas
Respondent: Lesage
•
•
Decided By: Rehnquist Court
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative
Action
•
Question: Did the Court of
Appeals err in holding that the
University of Texas was not
entitled to summary judgment for
its rejection of an African
immigrant Ph.D. applicant of
Caucasian descent even if he
would have been rejected under a
race-neutral policy?
•
Decision: Yes. the Court held that the
Court of Appeals held that University
of Texas was not entitled to summary
judgment on Lesage's section 1983
claim for damages relating to the
rejection of his application for the
1996-1997 academic year even if he
would have been denied admission
under a race-neutral policy, its
decision contradicts our holding in Mt.
Healthy
Political Cartoons
Interpretation Timeline
1868: XIVth Amendment proposed-
Everyone has equal
protection under
law
1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964-
Established the Civil
rights equality
1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke1979: United Steelworkers of America v. Weber
1988:Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.
2003: Grutter v. Bollinger
2003:Gratz v. Bollinger
The Specific
interpretation of
the liberties given
is up to the
discretion of the
court due to the
various
circumstances of
the cases
Bibliography
• http://www.oyez.org/cases/
• Http://www.cartoonstock.com
• http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3037271/
affirmative_action/