案例研究1:格拉茨和格拉特最高法院对密歇根大学的案件

J. S. Carter, Cameron D Lippard
{"title":"案例研究1:格拉茨和格拉特最高法院对密歇根大学的案件","authors":"J. S. Carter, Cameron D Lippard","doi":"10.1332/policypress/9781529201116.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this chapter is to understand arguments put forth by these social authorities (individuals and groups) in support and opposition to affirmative action within a prominent debate on affirmative action in higher education admissions. We are particularly interested in advocacy groups that have the ability and resources not afforded to most individuals to lobby the Supreme Court. We used the Gratz v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter v. Bollinger et al. U.S. Supreme Court cases as the site of the first case study. We look at how these entities deployed specific arguments and rhetoric within court documents to frame affirmative action to Supreme Court Justices. In particular, while all frames were considered, we look at two discursive frames prominent in the literature and how they were used by supporters and opponents of the policy: color-blind and threat frames. Findings demonstrate that while supporters often used color-blind arguments (and some threat as well), the opponent briefs were saturated with both color-blind frames.","PeriodicalId":229364,"journal":{"name":"The Death of Affirmative Action?","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case Study 1: The Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court Cases against the University of Michigan\",\"authors\":\"J. S. Carter, Cameron D Lippard\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/policypress/9781529201116.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this chapter is to understand arguments put forth by these social authorities (individuals and groups) in support and opposition to affirmative action within a prominent debate on affirmative action in higher education admissions. We are particularly interested in advocacy groups that have the ability and resources not afforded to most individuals to lobby the Supreme Court. We used the Gratz v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter v. Bollinger et al. U.S. Supreme Court cases as the site of the first case study. We look at how these entities deployed specific arguments and rhetoric within court documents to frame affirmative action to Supreme Court Justices. In particular, while all frames were considered, we look at two discursive frames prominent in the literature and how they were used by supporters and opponents of the policy: color-blind and threat frames. Findings demonstrate that while supporters often used color-blind arguments (and some threat as well), the opponent briefs were saturated with both color-blind frames.\",\"PeriodicalId\":229364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Death of Affirmative Action?\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Death of Affirmative Action?\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529201116.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Death of Affirmative Action?","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529201116.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章的目的是理解这些社会权威(个人和团体)在一场关于高等教育招生中的平权行动的著名辩论中支持和反对平权行动的论点。我们特别感兴趣的是那些拥有大多数个人无法提供的能力和资源来游说最高法院的倡导团体。我们使用了Gratz v. Bollinger et al和Grutter v. Bollinger et al。以美国最高法院案件为网站的第一个案例研究。我们看看这些实体如何在法庭文件中部署具体的论点和修辞,向最高法院大法官提出平权法案。特别是,在考虑所有框架的同时,我们研究了文献中突出的两个话语框架,以及政策的支持者和反对者如何使用它们:色盲框架和威胁框架。调查结果表明,虽然支持者经常使用色盲论点(以及一些威胁),但对手的简报中充斥着两种色盲框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Case Study 1: The Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court Cases against the University of Michigan
The purpose of this chapter is to understand arguments put forth by these social authorities (individuals and groups) in support and opposition to affirmative action within a prominent debate on affirmative action in higher education admissions. We are particularly interested in advocacy groups that have the ability and resources not afforded to most individuals to lobby the Supreme Court. We used the Gratz v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter v. Bollinger et al. U.S. Supreme Court cases as the site of the first case study. We look at how these entities deployed specific arguments and rhetoric within court documents to frame affirmative action to Supreme Court Justices. In particular, while all frames were considered, we look at two discursive frames prominent in the literature and how they were used by supporters and opponents of the policy: color-blind and threat frames. Findings demonstrate that while supporters often used color-blind arguments (and some threat as well), the opponent briefs were saturated with both color-blind frames.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conclusions Case Study 2: The Fisher Supreme Court Cases against the University of Texas at Austin Case Study 1: The Gratz and Grutter Supreme Court Cases against the University of Michigan Conclusions Case Study 1: The Gratz/Grutter Supreme Court Cases against the University of Michigan
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1