Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Harvard, SFFA asked if Harvard's admission practices were in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act given possible race-neutral selection processes, while in North Carolina, they asked if a university can reject a race-neutral admission process if they believe they need to protect the diversity of the student body and quality of ...
The court’s ruling also applies to Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions policy, which had been the subject of a separate, but similar, lawsuit filed by SFFA on the same day in 2014 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Harvard (2023), and its companion case Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (2023), the Supreme Court held that race and ethnicity cannot be used in admissions decisions. In other words, preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity violates The Equal Protection Clause.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual ...
The groups filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education claiming that Harvard's preferences for "legacy" applicants violates a federal law banning race discrimination for programs th
Wade was decided, Ginsburg filed a federal case to challenge involuntary sterilization, suing members of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina on behalf of Nial Ruth Cox, a mother who had been coercively sterilized under North Carolina's Sterilization of Persons Mentally Defective program on penalty of her family losing welfare benefits.