帝京国際文化　第18号　山内久史

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "帝京国際文化　第18号　山内久史"

たつぞうはかまや
9 years ago
Views:

1 Bakke 1978 Grutter 2003 Gratz 2003 Brown Bakke equal protection clause Grutter Gratz strict scrutiny LSA

2 Brown Bakke Bakke 14 separate but equal 1896 Plessy 1954 Brown with all deliberate speed (enforcement decree)

3 1938 Sweatt Chief Justice Vinson Brown 10

4 11 Civil Rights Act of great society E.O , C.F.R.339 quota DHEW role model

5 15 color-blind Bakke 17 Bakke

6 diverse student body GPA Allan Bakke 14 Justice Brennan intermediate scrutiny 18 color-conscious important governmental objects (substantially related) Justice Stevens color-blind

7 Justice Powell color-blind strict scrutiny Bakke suspect classification two-class theory compelling interest narrowly tailored

8 quota color-blind Bakke 19 (Academic freedom) free universities robust exchange of idea 20

9 21 quota , Bakke GPA grade point average LSAT(Law School Admissions Test) soft variables critical mass student body

10 diversity Grutter 1996 GPA LSAT Bollinger 137 F.Supp 2d 821 compelling state interest Bakke,438 U.S. 265,at311 Bakke narrowly tailored (Id., ) Justice O' Connor Bakke

11 Adarand Bakke critical mass quota 25 the University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions ACT/LSA GPA

12 underrepresented minority 1999 GPA ACT/LSA Jennifer Gratz (Patrick Hamacher) LSA LSA Bollinger LSA LSA LSA Bakke quota Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F.Supp. 2d 811 LSA certiorari

1997 LSA Bollinger 14 42 1981 LSA LSA 1995 1998 LSA

13 Chief Justice Rehnquist Grutter v. Bollinger LSA LSA Bakke Justice Powell the opinion of Court

14 strict scrutiny compelling state interest narrowly tailored quota quota Bakke Grutter suspect classification 1995 Adarand 22 Adarand Fullilove 23 Metro 24 Croson 25 Bakke

15 (Justice Ginsburg) Gratz Justice Breyer Fullilove Justice Marshall Scrutiny that is strict in theory, but fatal in fact 27 Adarand 28 Grutter

16 Grutter compelling interest narrowly tailored Adarand 29 role model Wygant 30 Bakke Bakke

17 narrowest grounds Marks 31 holding Grutter Grutter Gratz Bakke quota Grutter

18 quota Gratz 20 Bakke 25 Grutter

19 Bakke Adarand Justice Thomas Grutter color-blind jusitify 34

20 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.306 (2003). Gratz v. Bollinger,539 U.S.244 (2003) Kim Pauline Kim, The Colorblind Lottery, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 9, 9-10 (2003). Lee C. Bollinger, A Comment On Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger, (Symposium on Grutter and Gratz: Examining Diversity in Education),103 Colum. L. Rev. 1588,1591 (2003). Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas,347 U.S.483(1954). Earl Warren Plessy Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896).

Bollinger, A Comment On Grutter and Gratz v.

21 Jim Crow Plessy separate but equal doctrine Brown v. Board of Education, 344 U.S.294 (1955). Brown all deliberate speed Alexander v. Board of Education, 396 U.S.19 (1969). at once only unitary school North Carolina State Board of Education v.swan, 402 U.S.43 (1971). Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. (1971). Missouri ex.rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938). Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). Mclaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). Brown

22 Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. (1958) Brown I.T XI 42 U.S.C Regend of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S.265 at322 (1978).

23 Bolling v. Sharp, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) 14 Bolling due process clause Bakke, supra., 438 U.S.265 (1978). 18 important governmental objectives substantially related 19 Bakke, at Metro Bakke Lee C. Bollinger, A Comment On Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger, 103 Colum. L.Rev.1589, 1590(2003). 22 Adarand Constructors, Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

24 11 23 Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 (1980). 24 Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communication Commission, 497 U.S. 547 (1990). 25 City of Richmond v. J.A.Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989). 26 McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964). Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. (1967). Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). 27 Fullilove v. Klutznick,448 U.S. 448,at Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S.200, at Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986). 31 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977). holding narrowest grounds 32 Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F. 3d 732 (2002). Smith v. Univ. of Wash.Law School, 233 F. 3d 1188 (2000) 33 Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d 932 (1996). Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F. 3d 1234 (2001). 34 Stephen Minnich, Comment, Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena- A Strict Scrutiny of Affirmative Action, 46 Case Res. L. Rev. 279, at299 (1995)

アメリカ連邦最高裁における公教育像の考察（二）

アメリカ連邦最高裁における公教育像の考察（二） Tinker Abstract In this article, I consider how the Supreme Court of the United States has applied the standard adopted by Tinker, whether teachers can constitutionally restrict the student's freedom of

帝京国際文化 第18号 山内久史

帝京国際文化　第18号　山内久史