In a 2003 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan __________.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: In a 2003 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan __________.

Observation about options: The provided data includes an answer field with a single option, but the answer_options field is empty, so there are no alternative choices to compare within this prompt.

Assessment of the given option (the statement in answer): "could no longer give minority applicants a numerical bonus as part of the university's point system for admissions."

Reasoning for why this option aligns with the 2003 Supreme Court decision:
- The 2003 cases involved two Michigan admissions decisions: Gratz v. Bollinger (undergraduate admissions) and Grutter v. Bollinger (law school admissions).
- In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which assigned a roughly 20-point boost to underrepresented minority applicants simply for their minority status, violated the Equal Protection Clause because it used a mechanical, point-based system that awarded points based on ethnicity.
- In contrast, Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the law school's more holistic, individualized review process, not a numerical bonus tied to race. The key distinction is that Gratz struck down the fixed-point bonus, while Grutter allowed a holistic approach.
- Therefore, the statement that the university could no longer give minority applicants a numerical bonus as part of the undergraduate point system accurately reflects the Gratz portion of the 2003 ruling.

Why this option is correct (conceptual accuracy):
- It correctly identifies the invalidation of a racial bonus within a points-based admission framework, which is the central finding of Gratz v. Bollinger.
- It implicitly contrasts with the broader, more nuanced concept that not all affirmative-action practices are banned; the Court permitted holistic review in Grutter, but rejected a simple numerical advantage.

Why other options would be incorrect (hypothetical, since none are provided here):
- If there were an option claiming that all affirmative action was banned in every form, that would be incorrect because Grutter permitted holistic, individualized consideration.
- If there were an option suggesting the policy was upheld or not challenged, that would be incorrect because the Court found the specific policy unconstitutional.

Summary note: Given the 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger decision, the statement about the University of Michigan no longer awarding a numerical minority bonus in the point system is an accurate reflection of that ruling’s outcome for undergraduate admissions, while recognizing the nuanced distinction from the Grutter decision regarding holistic review.

SOC 225-001 Quiz 3

In a 2003 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the University of Michigan __________.

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

In its 2014 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action decision, the Supreme Court ruled that

Which show from the eText discussed a lawsuit challenging affirmative action?

As discussed in class, traditionally affirmative action, if done following the appropriate steps, can be legal, as demonstrated by which of the following league and their rule encouraging interviewing minority candidates?

The Rooney Rule is a NFL policy that requires league teams to interview ethnic-minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. This is an example of legal racial discrimination commonly referred to as: _______________

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单