Statements (102)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
April 1, 2003
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
gptkb:William_S._Consovoy
gptkb:Thomas_J._G._Mc_Carthy Analyzed under strict scrutiny standard |
| gptkbp:case_number |
Part of a series of cases on affirmative action
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
Majority opinion emphasized individual assessment Reinforced scrutiny of affirmative action policies Invalidated the use of a point system for admissions |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Key case in the evolution of affirmative action jurisprudence
Significant in the debate over affirmative action |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Civil rights case
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 23, 2003 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_William_Rehnquist gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer Concerns about the implications for future cases Concerns about the potential for reverse discrimination Discussion of the importance of diversity in fostering innovation Critique of the majority's dismissal of the value of diversity. Call for a broader understanding of affirmative action Support for the university's commitment to inclusivity Concerns about the implications for minority students Call for a nuanced approach to race in admissions Concerns about the impact on minority enrollment Concerns about the rigidity of admissions criteria Critique of the majority's narrow focus on race Critique of the majority's view on diversity Critique of the majority's view on meritocracy Concerns about the potential for increased polarization in society Critique of the majority's interpretation of the Constitution Support for the university's efforts to achieve diversity Support for holistic admissions processes Support for the educational benefits of diversity Support for the university's mission to serve a diverse population Discussion of the role of race in personal experiences Discussion of the historical significance of affirmative action Support for the university's holistic review process Discussion of the importance of understanding different perspectives Concerns about the rigidity of point systems in admissions Support for the university's efforts to create a diverse learning environment Concerns about the implications for future generations of students Critique of the majority's view on the role of race in society Support for the university's mission to promote diversity Advocacy for the benefits of a diverse student body Emphasis on the importance of diversity in education Discussion of the importance of representation in higher education Critique of the majority's reliance on anecdotal evidence Disagreement with the majority's interpretation of equal protection Discussion of the historical context of affirmative action Concerns about the potential chilling effect on affirmative action policies Critique of the majority's dismissal of diversity as a goal Emphasis on the role of race in societal structures Discussion of the importance of context in admissions decisions Criticism of the majority's reliance on statistical analysis |
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Gratz v. Bollinger
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced affirmative action policies nationwide
Influenced future affirmative action policies |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Lee_Bollinger
gptkb:Jennifer_Gratz |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
539 U. S. 244
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Part of the broader civil rights movement
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Affirmative action in college admissions
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Reaffirmed the importance of diversity
Declared unconstitutional the point system used for admissions |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
Diversity in higher education
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy
Court ruled against the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Grutter_v._Bollinger
gptkb:Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke Limits on racial preferences in admissions |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_John_Paul_Stevens
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_David_Souter gptkb:Justice_Sandra_Day_O'_Connor gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Fisher_v._University_of_Texas
|
| gptkbp:related_concept |
gptkb:Judicial_review
gptkb:Constitution Public policy Social justice Higher education policy Diversity initiatives Legal precedent Equal opportunity Civil rights law Affirmative action policy Merit-based admissions Racial quotas University admissions process |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Bollinger_v._Grutter
|
| gptkbp:university |
gptkb:University_of_Michigan
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|