Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098354
 
 

Footnotes (317)



 


 



How the Diversity Rationale Lays the Groundwork for New Discrimination: Examining the Trajectory of Equal Protection Doctrine


Michael A. Helfand


Pepperdine University School of Law

February 2, 2009

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 17, p. 607

Abstract:     
This article argues in favor of differentiating between two distinct categories of equal protection cases. The first - what I have termed indicator cases - are instances where a court considers whether there are sufficient factual indications to demonstrate the existence of a prima facie equal protection violation. The second - violation cases - are instances where a court considers whether there is a good enough justification for a prima facie equal protection violation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not differentiated between these two different types of cases, leading to a string of decisions where the Court has erroneously looked for justifications of non-existent Equal Protection Clause violations, when in fact it should have been looking for indications to determine whether there actually had been an Equal Protection Clause violation. But even more troubling are some of the suggestions on the horizon; for example, the diversity rationale adopted by the Court as sufficient to survive strict scrutiny could serve to justify discriminatory police tactics such as racial profiling. By clearly outlining the above distinction and its analytic ramifications, this article hopes to undermine arguments built on the diversity rationale as wholly unfounded.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 52

Keywords: equal protection, diversity, compelling interest, affirmative action, Parents Involved

JEL Classification: K10

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: February 28, 2008 ; Last revised: May 11, 2009

Suggested Citation

Helfand, Michael A., How the Diversity Rationale Lays the Groundwork for New Discrimination: Examining the Trajectory of Equal Protection Doctrine (February 2, 2009). William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 17, p. 607. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1098354

Contact Information

Michael A. Helfand (Contact Author)
Pepperdine University School of Law ( email )
24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90263
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,034
Downloads: 219
Download Rank: 82,449
Footnotes:  317

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.282 seconds