Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger in 2003 are generally regarded as the the inflection point that determined that AA to “make up for” historical racism was unconstitutional, but AA to achieve the same bad of “diversity” was allowable so long as it was evaluated on an individual basis.
Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger in 2003 are generally regarded as the the inflection point that determined that AA to “make up for” historical racism was unconstitutional, but AA to achieve the same bad of “diversity” was allowable so long as it was evaluated on an individual basis.
And 96 is when the California amendment passed.
I’d say the decade from 95 to 05 was pretty critical for AA starting to lose ground (or maybe not “become less popular” so much as “become more widely known and therefore people started agitating against it”).
Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger in 2003 are generally regarded as the the inflection point that determined that AA to “make up for” historical racism was unconstitutional, but AA to achieve the same bad of “diversity” was allowable so long as it was evaluated on an individual basis.
And 96 is when the California amendment passed.
I’d say the decade from 95 to 05 was pretty critical for AA starting to lose ground (or maybe not “become less popular” so much as “become more widely known and therefore people started agitating against it”).