Imagine that you just graduated from Harvard Law School and have started working at the Latina/o Civil Rights Law Firm of Los Angeles. Chancellor Block has just changed UCLAâs admissions policy to promote greater student body diversity. Knowing that you have some experience in constitutional law related to affirmative action, the executive director of the Latina/o Civil Rights Law Firm asks you to evaluate whether or not Chancellor Blockâs new policy is constitutional.
Chancellor Blockâs admissions policy is called âBruin Diversity.â There are three stated goals of âBruin Diversityâ:
- Reduction of the historic deficit of Latinas/os, African Americans, and Native Americans at UCLA.
- To remedy the effects of societal discrimination against Latinas/os, African Americans, Native Americans, and other ethnic minority groups in the current hostile political climate.
- To obtain the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body.
According to âBruin Diversity,â applications will be reviewed based upon the following criteria:
- High school grades (30 points maximum)
- Standardized test scores (30 points maximum)
- High school quality (10 points maximum)
- Curriculum strength (10 points maximum)
- Geography (10 points maximum)
- Leadership (10 points maximum)
- Miscellaneous (15 points maximum)
QUESTION ONE
Is the Bruin Diversity Plan legal according to Prop 209 and Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson? Why or why not? In your answer take into consideration only traditional equal protection clause analysis. Donât worry about structural equal protection analysis. 1 page, double-spaced.
QUESTION TWO
If Proposition 209 was eliminated, would the Bruin Diversity Plan be constitutional according to the Equal Protection Clause? 5 pages, double-spaced.
Your answer should address the following key issues:
- Is the Bruin Diversity Plan justified by a compelling interest? Which of the stated goals can be considered compelling? Why or why not?
1-1.5 pages.
- Is the Bruin Diversity Plan narrowly tailored? 2-3 pages.
QUESTION THREE
In the Grutter case of 2003, Justice Sandra Day OâConnor stated:
“We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Based upon what you have learned in this course, do you think that affirmative action is necessary today in university admissions, employment, and/or government contracting? Why or why not? You may also choose to include a discussion of gender in your response.
Sample Solution
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples