7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

1/20

Supreme Court DBQ: Equal Protectionand Affirmative Action

The curriculum,Supreme Court DBQs,

was made possible bya generous grant fromthe National

Endowment for theHumanities through

its We the Peopleprogram.

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

2/20

Mission Statement

Established in 1999, the Institute is a 501(c)(3) notfor profit charity focused on providing educationalresources on America's Founding documents and

principles for teachers and students of AmericanHistory and Civics. Our mission is to educateyoung people about the words and ideas of theFounders, the liberties guaranteed in our Founding

documents, and how our Founding principlescontinue to affect and shape a free society.

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

3/20

Components of Professional Development

Enhance our own knowledge

Explore new teachingstrategies

Enrich the expertise ofother teachers

There is no knowledge that is not power.~Ralph Waldo Emerson

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

4/20

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts &Literacy in History/Social Studies

8. Delineate and evaluate the reasoning inseminal U.S. texts, including the applicationof constitutional principles and use of legal

reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Courtmajority opinions and dissents) and thepremises, purposes, and arguments inworks of public advocacy (e.g., TheFederalist, presidential addresses).

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

5/20

Equal Protection and AffirmativeAction: Related Cases

Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, p. 41

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954,p. 53

Regents of the University ofCalifornia v. Bakke, 1978 p. 63

Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v.Bollinger, 2003, p. 75

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

6/20

In the Michigan affirmative action cases, which featurewas considered constitutional in public university

admissions policies?1. The admission of a critical mass of minority

students

2. The use of an automatic award of points basedon race

3. The use of quotas based on race

4. The rejection of race as a consideration inadmission

5. Not sure

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

7/20

Grutter v. Bollinger(2003) Gratz v.Bollinger(2003)p. 135

Courtesy Kjetil Ree

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

8/20

Key Questions for the Equal Protection DBQs help studentspractice the thinking skill of grappling with causes and effectsas they consider issues of equal protection in American history.

The Big Picture

http://www.cir-usa.org/Images/grutter2.jpg

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

9/20

Scaffolding QuestionsWork in groups to consider the documentsand their scaffolding questions.

Group 1: Documents A, B, C

Group 2: Documents D, E

Group 3: Documents F, G, H

Group 4: Documents I, J

Group 5: Documents K, L

Report on your discussion:Answer the scaffolding questions.

Explain how the scaffolding questions may be useful in helping understandthe document.

How does this document help us understand the issues involved inaffirmative action for college admissions?

All groups: As time permits,discuss cartoon, p. 86.

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

10/20

Summary of the 2003 Michigan Decisions

Gratz v. BollingerIn a 6-3 decision written by Chief

Justice Rehnquist, the Court overturned theaffirmative action program used in MichigansCollege of Literature, Science and the Arts.

Agreeing with the position promoted by JenniferGratz, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "because

the University's use of race in its currentfreshman admissions policy is not narrowlytailored to achieve respondents' assertedcompelling interest in diversity, the admissionspolicy violates the Equal Protection Clause."

The use of a mathematical formula awarding 20 of

100 possible points to every underrepresentedminority applicant solely because of race wasnot consistent with the individualizedconsideration that Justice Powell contemplatedin Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,438 U.S. 265 (1978).

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

11/20

Summary of the 2003 Michigan Decisions

Since she filed her suit, JenniferGratz graduated from theUniversity of Michigan -

Dearborn with a degree inmathematics and worked inthe computer software

industry before moving backto Michigan to lead theMichigan Civil Rights

Initiative.

Jennifer Gratz

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

12/20

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice OConnor, the

Court upheld the affirmative action programused in the University of Michigans LawSchool.

The Court reasoned that, because the Law Schoolconducts highly individualized review of eachapplicant, no acceptance or rejection is basedautomatically on a variable such as race andthat this process ensures that all factors thatmay contribute to diversity are meaningfullyconsidered alongside race.

The law schools approach, giving some

preference to racial/ethnic minorities in aneffort to achieve a critical mass in terms ofdiversitybut without assigning amathematical formula, was seen asconstitutional. Justice OConnor expressed the

hope that in another 25 years, such affirmativeaction policies will be unnecessary.

Grutter v. Bollinger

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5c/O'Connor,_Sandra.jpg

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

13/20

Summary of the 2003 Michigan Decisions

Following her defeat in the

Supreme Court, BarbaraGrutter did not attend lawschool. Instead, she focuseson running her Michigan-

based health care consultingcompany and bringing upher two children. She alsoserves on the board ofdirectors of Towards a Fair

Michigan, an organizationdedicated to fosteringpublic discussion about racepreferences.

University of Michigan LawSchool 2009

http://www.cir-usa.org/Images/grutter2.jpg

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

14/20

In the Michigan affirmative action cases, which featurewas considered constitutional in public university

admissions policies?1. The admission of a critical mass of minority

students

2. The use of an automatic award of points basedon race

3. The use of quotas based on race

4. The rejection of race as a consideration inadmission

5. Not sure

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

15/20

Homepage-Linked from our website

Note activation code in the back of the book.

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

16/20

Interactive Timeline

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

17/20

Interactive Timeline

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

18/20

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

19/20

Help Page

7/31/2019 SCDBQ Gratz v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger

20/20

We WantYOU

To use ourcurriculum

To let us know howthese resources work

in your classroom

To pilot or evaluate

our curriculum