Answer:
Explanation:
Issue: Can an institution of higher learning use race as a factor when making admissions decisions?
Result: The Court held that universities may use race as part of an admissions process so long as "fixed quotas" are not used. The Court determined that the specific system in place at the University of California Medical School was "unnecessary" to achieve the goal of creating a diverse student body and was merely a "fixed quota" and therefore, was unconstitutional.
Importance: The decision started a line of cases in which the Court upheld affirmative action programs. In 2003, such academic affirmative action programs were again directly challenged in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In these cases, the Court clarified that admission programs that include race as a factor can pass constitutional muster so long as the policy is narrowly tailored and does not create an automatic preference based on race. The Court asserted that a system that created an automatic race-based preference would in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Answer:
In contemporary u.s. society, men suffer more from gender inequality as individuals, while women are harmed more as a group. This is because, <em><u>men are harmed by androcentrism alone and women by androcentrism, </u></em><em><u>and subordination.</u></em>
