NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED482312
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2003
Pages: 29
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Assessing Medical School Admissions Policies: Implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's Affirmative-Action Decisions.
Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
This document, which is not legal advice, has been designed to help medical schools work with legal counsel to put into practice the rulings from two Michigan court cases that provide tools for enhancing medical school diversity and outline the contours of a race-conscious/ethnicity-conscious admissions policy likely to pass legal muster. The document focuses on using the diversity rationale in building race-conscious/ethnicity-conscious admissions policies. It offers: (1) brief summaries with an analysis of both Grutter v Bollinger, et al. (the law school case) and Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. (the undergraduate case); (2) policy considerations associated with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in these cases; (3) a list of considerations to help medical schools think about how to implement narrowly tailored, race-conscious/ethnicity-conscious admissions policies or assess existing policies; and (4) appendices that include historical highlights of affirmative action in education and selected references for readers to obtain more information about how the Court ruled and the implications of its rulings. With the Supreme Court rulings an important mechanism for promoting diversity has been preserved, although opponents of affirmative action will continue to challenge institutions that use race-conscious/ethnicity-conscious policies. (Contains 40 references.) (SLD)
For full text: http://www.aamc.org/morediversity.
Publication Type: Guides - Non-Classroom
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Gratz et al v Bollinger et al; Grutter et al v Bollinger et al