This document summarizes key aspects of the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger regarding affirmative action in university admissions. It discusses the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court's decision that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify considering race, and dissenting opinions. It also outlines later developments around affirmative action bans passed in some states and ongoing debates around discrimination and diversity.
This document summarizes key aspects of the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger regarding affirmative action in university admissions. It discusses the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court's decision that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify considering race, and dissenting opinions. It also outlines later developments around affirmative action bans passed in some states and ongoing debates around discrimination and diversity.
This document summarizes key aspects of the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger regarding affirmative action in university admissions. It discusses the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court's decision that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify considering race, and dissenting opinions. It also outlines later developments around affirmative action bans passed in some states and ongoing debates around discrimination and diversity.
This document summarizes key aspects of the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger regarding affirmative action in university admissions. It discusses the lower court rulings, the Supreme Court's decision that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify considering race, and dissenting opinions. It also outlines later developments around affirmative action bans passed in some states and ongoing debates around discrimination and diversity.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10
Business Ethics
The Ethics of Job Discrimination
• Age • Disability • Equal Pay/Compensation • Genetic Information • Harassment • National Origin • Pregnancy • Race/Color • Religion • Retaliation
Common Basis of • Sex
• Sexual Harassment Discrimination Class Discrimination • Class discrimination (classism) is prejudice or discrimination on the basis of social class. • It includes individual attitudes, behaviors, systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper class at the expense of the lower class or vice versa. • Social class refers to the grouping of individuals in a hierarchy based on wealth, income, education, occupation, and social network. Instead of Numbers : A Case, this time Grutter Vs. Bollinger Gruuter a white lady seeking admission into law course at University of Michigan Bollinger the President of the university and the University were sued for; she has been denied admission because of University’s Affirmative Action Programme. And due to it the admission has been offered to some one from the minority community by giving unfairly preference despite both having similar credentials. Rulings • 1) District Court : in favor of Grutter saying University has shown racial discrimination in admission by offering admission to a minority student. • 2) it has been appealed by University in the court of appeal and the court overturned the decision of district court by saying that University’s decision was fair and constitutional as it sought to have the diversity. • Barbara Grutter took her case to Supreme Court. • In an earlier decision (Gratz v. Bollinger) SC has ruled that AA program was unconstitutional because it was not “narrowly tailored” and so gave too much weight to race. • SC held in this case that: It is fair and constitutional for a university to show preference to minorities if its goal is to achieve “diversity” an a way that is “narrowly tailored” to achieve this goal and the program met these criteria. Supreme Court Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions.... Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints .... Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of the Nation's leaders, the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus, the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body. The Law School's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan .... Universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial or ethnic groups or put them on separate admissions tracks .... The Law School's admissions program, [however,] ... is flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application.! Many renowned companies • In the amicus brief to the court the companies like Coca Cola, Nike, Shell, HP, 3M, E&Y….etc.. Have urged the supreme court to protect the diversity program of UM for,
• 1) Cross cultural environment has an ability to facilitate unique
and creative problem solving to the situations arising from different perspectives. • 2) Such individuals are better at developing the products and services that appeal to these communities. • 3) They are better able to work in cross cultural environment including offshore. • 4) They if educated in a diverse settings are better trained to manage and control stereotyping and discrimination at work place. Judge Clarence Thomas (a black man) I believe what lies beneath the Court's decision today are the benighted notions that one can tell when racial discrimination benefits (rather than hurts) minority groups, and that racial discrimination is necessary to remedy general societal ills .... Clearly the majority still cannot commit to the principle that racial classifications are per se harmful and that almost no amount of benefit in the eye of the beholder can justify such classifications .... This discrimination engender[s] attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke[s] resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government's use of race. These programs stamp minorities with a badge of inferiority and may cause them to develop dependencies or to adopt an attitude that they are “entitled” to preferences. Later developments • The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court did not end the controversy. After the SC decision was announced, the Michigan state legislature began a divisive and rancorous debate over whether to pass a law that would withhold state funds from public universities-including the University of Michigan-that used affirmative action programs. The debate over the issue was so heated and belligerent that a fistfight broke out on the floor of the legislature between opponents and supporters of the measure. • In the end, a deeply divided legislature passed the law. Even then the matter did not end. In 2004, a group of Michigan residents began a drive in support of a statewide vote on a measure that would make it illegal for universities and other public institutions in Michigan to use affirmative action programs; in 2006, the drive succeeded with the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. California had already passed such a law, and Washington, Florida, Nebraska, and Arizona had passed similar laws by 2011. Yet citizens in other states, like Colorado, voted against banning affirmative action programs. Later developments • As the 2011 University of Texas Court of Appeals decision, the 2003 Supreme Court decision in the University of Michigan Law School case, and the polarizing campaigns to pass state laws banning affirmative action all indicate, our nation today remains bitterly divided over our legacy of discrimination and over the justice of dealing with the effects of past discrimination through affirmative action programs. Many businesses, like the Fortune 500 companies that supported the goal of diversity, believe that it is key to competing in a rapidly globalizing world because, as the Supreme Court stated, "the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." Many, however, believe that attempts to achieve diversity through affirmative action programs are themselves forms of unjust "reverse discrimination." • The debates over equality, diversity, and discrimination have been prolonged and acrimonious. Controversy continues to swirl around the nature of the plight of racial minorities, the inequality of women, and the harm that whites or males have suffered as a result of preference shown to women and minorities. These continuing debates over racial and sexual diversity have often focused on business and its needs. This is inevitable: Racial and sexual discrimination have had a long history in business, and diversity now promises to have significant benefits for business. • Perhaps more than any other contemporary social issue, public discussions discrimination and diversity have clearly approached the subject in ethical term. The words justice, equality, racism, rights, and discrimination inevitably find their way into the debate.