Bollinger Special Cuvée, Case of 3 x 75cl

Product Information

Baldus, David C.; Pulaski, Charles A.; Woodworth, George (1992). "Law and Statistics in Conflict: Reflections on McCleskey v. Kemp". In Kagehiro, Dorothy K.; Laufer, William S. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology and Law. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 271–291. ISBN 0-387-97568-3. Summary judgment granted in part to plaintiffs, 122 F. Supp. 2d 811 ( E.D. Mich. 2000); Summary judgment granted to plaintiffs, 135 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich. 2001); consolidated on appeal with Grutter v. Bollinger before en banc court, 277 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2001); cert. before judgment granted, 537 U.S. 1044(2002). Feingold, Jonathan (2018). "Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About the Supreme Court's Use of Social Science". Northwestern University Law Review. 112. Grutter claimed that the Law School’s use of affirmative action in its admissions policy violated her Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Dr. Haiselden Expelled: Bollinger Baby’s Doctor Dropped by Chicago Medical Society.” Washington Post, Mar. 15, 1916

In sum, the University of Michigan cases make clear that promoting diversity in higher education can justify race-conscious admissions policies when they are carefully designed and consider race as part of a flexible and individualized review of all applicants. And by doing so, you actually increase merit and neutrality. Because you’re removing or countering all of these systemic structural forces that have been historically excluding folks who should have been there from the beginning. Harvard and UNC both employ a particular sort of affirmative action policy. One component of it is what many people would refer to as a race-conscious admissions policy. After being denied admission to the University of Texas in 2008, a white woman named Abigail Fisher sued the university over its race-conscious admissions policy in what was widely seen as an attempt to overturn the court's previous stances on affirmative action. The case arose after a prospective student to the University of Michigan Law School alleged that she had been denied admission because the school gave certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission. The school admitted that its admission process favored certain minority groups, but argued that there was a compelling state interest to ensure a "critical mass" of students from minority groups. In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Feingold: There are a couple of questions that I will be looking out for, in part because there are a few different ways in which the Supreme Court could eliminate race-conscious admissions practices. Perry, Barbara A. (2007). The Michigan Affirmative Action Cases. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0-7006-1549-0.

When the Law School denied admission to petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. The District Court found the Law School’s use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a “potential ‘plus’ factor” and because the Law School’s program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion. While the Harvard and UNC cases pose slightly different questions to the Supreme Court, the implications for higher education institutions and their students—should the Court rule in favor of Students for Fair Admissions—are strikingly similar.

Boggs, Justin (June 29, 2023). "Supreme Court overturns college affirmative action policies". KIVI-TV . Retrieved June 29, 2023. Feingold, Jonathan (2019). "Hidden in Plain Sight: A More Compelling Case for Diversity". Utah Law Review. 2019 (1): 59.