Modal close

Dear Democracy Now! visitor,

You turn to Democracy Now! for ad-free news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for in-depth stories that expose corporate and government abuses of power. Democracy Now! brings you crucial reporting like our coverage from the front lines of the standoff at Standing Rock or news about the movements fighting for peace, racial and economic justice, immigrant rights and LGBTQ equality. We produce our daily news hour at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation—all without ads, government funding or corporate sponsorship. How is this possible? Only with your support. Right now, a generous funder will match your donation dollar for dollar. That means when you give $10 to Democracy Now!, we'll receive $20. So, if you've been waiting to make your contribution to Democracy Now!, today is your day. It takes just a couple of minutes to make sure that Democracy Now! is there for you and everybody else in 2017.

Non-commercial news needs your support.

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Topics

Yesterday the Supreme Court Heard Opening Arguments in Two Landmark Cases That May Decide the Future of Affirmative Action: We'll Have Our Own Debate Today

StoryApril 02, 2003
Watch iconWatch Full Show

Guests
Kirk Kolbo

lead counsel for the Center for Individual Rights who argued against affirmative action in front of the Supreme Court yesterday.

Miranda Massie

lead attorney for the student defenders in the University of Michigan Law School Case.

Agnes Aleobua

University of Michigan student.


With thousands of protesters outside, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments on two landmark cases that will likely decide the future of affirmative action.

The stakes are high. The court could prohibit affirmative action programs at all universities, public and private, across the country. The court could allow the programs to continue. Or, the court could pronounce new standards for evaluating programs on a case by case basis.

The New York Times reports it appears based on yesterday’s proceedings that affirmative action will survive its most important test in 25 years.

Most notably, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is widely viewed as holding the likely swing vote in the decision, raised a series of skeptical questions to the lawyers arguing against affirmative action.

The Court is hearing a pair of cases involving the admissions policy of the University of Michigan. The case names are Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.

Grutter is a challenge to the university’s law school admissions program, which gives African-American, Latino and Native American applicants a loosely defined special consideration to ensure that there is a "critical mass" of such students in each new class.

Gratz is a challenge to the university’s undergraduate admissions policy, which tries to ensure a "critical mass" of African-American, Latino and Native American enrollments by giving such applicants an automatic 20-point bonus on the school’s 150-point "selection index."

Let’s begin by hearing some of yesterday’s arguments. This is an excerpt of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy quizzing Kirk O. Kolbo, the attorney for the plaintiffs in Grutter v. Bollinger, which challenges the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Non-commercial news needs your support

We rely on contributions from our viewers and listeners to do our work.
Please do your part today.

Make a donation