Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

CASE BRIEFS HARVARD UNIVERISITY

BY: RAEYAN REPOSAR HIGHER EDUCATION LAW and


POLICY

GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER et al.


FACTS

1. The petitioner herein, a white Michigan resident applied in the said law school in 1996. She had a 3.8
GPA and a 161 LSAT Score. Initially, she was put on the waitlist but eventually rejected her
application.
2. The University of Michigan Law School in compliance with Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.
imposes a narrowly tailored use of race as a factor for its diversification program. Aside from the usual
requirements, officials consider “soft variables” which includes; recommenders’ enthusiasm, the
quality of the undergraduate institution and the applicant’s essay, and the areas and difficulty of
undergraduate course selection
3. Aggrieved of her non acceptance, she now then files a lawsuit against the university on the grounds
that the her rejection was on the basis of her race, violating fourteenth amendment; TITLE VI of the
Civil rights of 1964.
4. She argues that race is a predominant factor, being a “plus” to the application which gives people
coming from minority groups who have similar credentials from her greater chances of success in the
admission. She contends that she was disadvantaged by the policy because she did not benefit from
the policy because of her race.
5. The district court rules in the petitioner’s favor on the ground of strict scrutiny rule explaining that the
defendants were not able to prove compelling state interest. Court Appeals upon granting the
declaratory relief reversed the decision citing Justice Powell’s opinion as ruled in the case of Marks v.
United States

ISSUE

Whether diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the narrowly tailored use of race in selecting
applicants for admission to public universities.

RULES

AS ARGUED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS ARGUED BY THE DEFENDANT


1. FOURTEENTH 1. REASON FOR CA’S REVERSAL:
AMENDMENT, EQUAL JUSTICE POWELL’S OPINION ON
PROTECTION CLAUSE, NOS TATE THE Bakke Case is the controlling
SHAL DENY TO ANY PERSON principle as applied in the Analysis of
WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE Marks v. United States
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE
LAWS”
2. CIVIL RIGHTS OF 1964
3. STRICT SCRUTINY RULE;
ANALYSING COMPELLING
INTEREST IN APPLYING THE
POLICY ON DIVERSIFICATION
*District court finds that there is no
compelling interest

HELD:
Yes. The court rules that the equal protection clause, and TITLE VI do not prohibit the narrowly
tailored use of race in the admission process to further a compelling interest in obtaining the
educational benefits that flow from a diverse of student body.

ANALYSIS

1. In the context of university admissions, the Supreme Court finds that student diversity is a compelling
state interest as ruled in the case Bakke. Justice Powell grounded his argument on the basis of
academic freedom, which is viewed at some point to clash with the first amendment. He emphasized in
his opinion that the nation’s future depends upon the leaders trained through wide exposure.
2. Race-based action necessary to further a compelling governmental interest does not violate the Equal
Protection Clause so long as it is narrowly tailored to further that interest. This explains that not every
decision influenced by race is objectionable. The strict scrutiny rule only provides a framework for
carefully examining the importance of the policy imposed. Whether or not the policy in fact, violates any
constitutional right.
3. Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body because it is essential to its
educational mission. Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School’s proper
institutional mission, and its “good faith” is “presumed” absent “a showing to the contrary.” Of course,
choosing minority students just to satisfy a target percentage of minority population in the university
would be unconstitutional, but Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the
substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including
cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. American business have in fact
made it clear that the skills in today’s increasingly global market place can only be developed through
exposure to different perspectives which diversity offer. It was further argued that law schools usually
become training ground for a large number of nation’s leaders hence, policies should be sensitive in
ensuring that it gives opportunity for every race and ethnicity.
4. It is narrowly tailored plan and the race only becomes a “plus factor” but it has to be flexible to consider
other variables and other elements of diversity in light of particular qualifications, which places all
applicants on the same ground. No quotas or anything of some sort were imposed in the policy. Because
of the policy’s consideration to whatever contribution ion diversity one student can make proves that this
does not harm non-minority applicants. The University further opined that race-neutral policies are not
meant to stay forever but can be terminated when practicable.

CONCLUSION

The University’s Diversification program is lawful and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and TITLE
VI.
Urofsky v. Gilmore, 216 F.3d 401,(4th Cir. 2000)

FACTS

1. Six professors employed in different public colleges and universities in Virginia are
challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia law restricting state employees from accessing
sexually explicit material on computers that are owned or leased by the state.
2. They argue that the law is unconstitutional because it violates their first amendment rights and their
academic freedom to access such materials not for personal use but for work related purposes. That
a university professor possesses a constitutional right to determine for himself, without the input of
the university
3. It is noteworthy that the employees who brought this action has requested and was subsequently
denied permission to access such materials pursuant to the act.
4. It was argued by the defendants of the case that the policy does not infringe the first amendment
rights of anyone who wants to access explicit materials because they are still given the liberty to do
so using their personal devices. What the law prohibits is accessing explicit materials using
computers that are owned or leased by the state.

ISSUE

1. Does the Virginia law infringe the constitutional rights of public employees in general?
2. Does the Virginia Law infringe the first amendment rights of academic freedom of state employees
by prohibiting access of explicit materials using state owned or leased computers?

RULES

APPLICABLE RULES ON THE FIRST ISSUE APPLICABLE RULES ON THE SECOND ISSUE
 First Amendment of the USA Constitution,  First Amendment of Academic Freedom
the right to freedom of speech  Epperson v. Arkansas and Keyishian; The
 CITIZENS DO NOT RELINQUISH ALL first amendment does not tolerate laws that
THEIR FIRST AMEMNDEMNT RIGHTS BY cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.
VIRTUE OF ACCEPTING EMPLOYMENT  Sweezy Case – First amendment protects
United States v. National Treasury values of academic freedom but applies on
Employees Union state employees’ rights as private citizens.

 THE STATE AS AN EMPLOYER


UNDOUBTEDLY POSSESSES GREATER HELD: NO. IF THE LAW does not infringe the
AUTHORITY TO RESTRICt THE SPEECH constitutional rights of the employees, then it
OF ITS EMPLOYEES THAN IT HAS AS ALSO does not infringe academic freedom.
SOVEREIGN TO RESTRICT SPEECH OF
THE CITIZENRY AS A WHOLE
Waters v. Churchill

 Pickering balancing test –Test that


determines if the speech is entitled to first
amendment protection, if the speech is made
in the employee’s role as a citizen or as an
employee.

HELD: No. Court ruled that the access to certain


materials using computers owned by the state
for the purpose of carrying out employment
duties is clearly made in the employee’s role as
an employee. In this regard, the restriction
applies to the kind of speech which the state can
validly regulate because it is made in the
employee’s capacity as an employee.

ANALYSIS
FIRST ISSUE SECOND ISSUE
1. The LAW is valid because it does not restrict 1. In contrary with the argument of the
the speech of the employees as CITIZENS appellants raising the case of Sweezy as to
but only in their capacity as PUBLIC why their freedom of speech has been
EMPLOYEES. infringed by the said law, the Supreme Court
2. The restriction is necessary in order for the remains consistent explaining that such
state to pursue its legitimate goals DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY at the case
effectively. One of the ways to achieve this is at bar because the kind of speech in the
its ability to control the manner in which Sweezy case is one made by the state’s
employees undertake their responsibilities. employee in her capacity as private citizen.
3. 2. Jurisprudence that has referred to Academic
Freedom only deals generally with the
institution and not individuals who are part of
the institution. When the court discussed the
case of KEYISHIAN involving the right of the
professor to speak and associate in his
capacity as a private citizen, the court
clarified that in its conclusion that it did not
focus on the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of the
teachers but focuses on THE IMPACT OF
THE NEW YORK PROVISIONS
SCHOOOLS AS INSITUTIONS; THE VICE
OF NEW YORK PROVISIONS ON
SCHOOLS AS AN INSTITUTION.
3. Also, Waters v. Churchill, the state as an
employer has the legitimate power to restrict
speech of its employees. In the case at BAR,
Supreme Court Jurisprudence rules that
ACADEMIC FREEDOM belongs to
INSTITUTIONS and not a PUBLIC
PROFESSOR.

CONLCUSION

The law is perfectly constitutionally valid since it does not infringe on the FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS of
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES as PRIVATE CITIZENS. Limiting freedom of speech is a valid action and power of the
STATE AS AN EMPLOYEE in order to pursue its legitimate goals.

CABADING v. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST


FACTS
1. California Baptist University is a nonprofit religious corporation, a private religious college whose board
of trustees are required to be members of Southern Baptist Churches. The university also requires the
faculty to be practicing Christians. In the application process, they are required to identify their
churches and pastors, and part of the method of teaching required by the University is to integrate
Christian faith into their subjects.
2. CBU undergraduate students are subject to STRICT MORAL CODE that prohibits sexual conduct
outside marriage, smoking, alcohol consumption, social dancing, and gambling, practicing occult.
3. Plaintiff Domainlor Cabading, a male to female pre-operative transgendered person applied to
California Baptist University for the fall semester of 2011 and was admitted on a merit scholarship.
4. When the University learned that Cabading appeared on a reality TV to discuss her identity, the
university suspended her and later on expelled her. The university excluded her from all university
properties, all programs and events, on the grounds that she had misrepresented that she is female.
5. Cabading administratively appealed and the Appellate Body affirmed her expulsion, exclusion from
CBU properties otherwise open to the public, but reversed their decision on excluding her from
community and public events held on campus
6. Now, Cabading files a case against CBU on these grounds;
a. Breach of contract;
b. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
c. Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act for her suspension, Exclusion, and her Expulsion.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not CBU is guilty for Violation of Unruh Civil Rights for Cabading’s suspension,
Exclusion in school’s activities and progams, and Expulsion.
2. Whether or not CBU breached the contract and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing when it expelled Cabading from CBU on the grounds of misrepresenting her identity.

RULES

On the first issue: Second Issue:


- Unruh Civil Rights Act – A piece - Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5
of California legislation that specifically - Gupta v. Stanford University
outlaws discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, age, disability, medical HELD: No. CBU is not guilty of breach of Contract and
condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in its
This law applies to all businesses such as hotels and
motels, restaurants, theaters, hospitals, barber and
decision to expel Cabading.
beauty shops, housing accommodations, and retail
establishments.

On establishing whether or not Unruh Civil Rights apply,


it was essential to determine if CBU is a business entity
or if the institution is subject to the said law.
- Curran v. Mount Diablo Council
- Doe v. California Lutheran High School
Association

HELD: YES only INSOFAR AS EXCLUSION IS


CONCERNED.

HELD: SUSPENSION and EXPULSION are


LAWFUL and VALID.

ANALYSIS
First Issue: Second Issue:
1. Out of the THREE ACTIONS MADE CBU, ONLY 1. The second issue in nature is procedural, and they
CABADINGS EXCLUSION ON SCHOOL are contract claims.
GROUNDS IS VIOLATES UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS. 2. The court ruled that CBU as an educational
- Although it is settled that CBU is a non-profit institution, CBU’s rules governing student discipline
educational institutions, EXCLUDING her from provide for a quasi-judicial administrative hearing as
CBU’S school ground and ANCILLIARY part of the student disciplinary process, This means
OPERATIONS is violative of ther RIGHTS since that before a party seeks for any judicial remedy,
the mentioned operation is considered SEPARATE the administrative process must be exhausted first.
from ITS ON CAMPUS UNDERGRDUATE Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.
PROGRAMS. 3. The court finds that the administrative process was
- The ANCILLIARY PROGRAM activities are not not exhausted in this case so the court cannot grant
RELIGIOUS or VALUES Based, and does not any judicial remedy on its end. Given that CBU
impose any moral code of conduct. Moreover, this under this rule has its own Fact-finding body, the
PROGRAM can be participated by ANYONE, issues surrounding this cause of action should have
hence, restricting CABADING would be been determined by the administrative mandamus
discriminatory based on her GENDER and perfectly proceedings.
under the purview of UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS

2. COURT UPHOLDS SUSPENSION and EXPULSION. In


CBU’s CAPACITY as AN EDUCATIONAL, NON PROFIT
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS
CANNOT APPLY as it is limited to BUSINESS ENTITIES
ONLY. Its ANCILLIARY PROGRAM as ruled, is
SEPARATE from its EDUCATION OPERATIONS.
- As ruled in Curran v. Mount Diablo, although the boy
Scouts engage in commercial activities, it does not change
the nature of the organization and it does not make it a
business entity.

CONCLUSION

 CBU ONLY VIOLATED UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS INSOFAR AS THEIR ANCILLIARY OPERATIONS
ARE CONCERNED.
 SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION ARE UPHELD.
 DUE TO PROCEDURAL LAPSES THE COURT CANNOT PROVIDE JUDICIAL REMEDY ON THE
FIRST AND SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.