Paper Critique answers

							Directions: Carefully read the following essay for organization, development, grammar
and mechanics. Does the essay have a clear thesis, well developed paragraphs and make
effective use of grammar and mechanics? Using the track changes feature in MS Word,
please proof read this essay, making comments and revisions where appropriate and
necessary so that the writer can revise the essay for a stronger, more effective essay.

Please see one reader’s comments below.



                                                   Argument

   Ms. Grutter argues that the affirmative actions (what afffirmative actions: hers or those of

someone else, or do you meant that affirmative action is biased against caucasians) are biased

(verb tense error) against the Caucasians race (do you really need the owrd race here. If you

refer to them as caucasians, you do not need the word race; it is redundant),; (comma splice) if

proven it would establish the defendant right as set forth in the Fourteeth Amendment. (this

paragraph either needs to be combined with the one following it, or it need s least 3-5 more

sentences to avoid weak development.you might want to consider spelling out the specific

right that your are refering to; citizenship for former slaves {and their descendants}or the

establishment of a definition of citizenship.)

   This matter is before the court on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (is the court reviewing both of these

issues: the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1964? How can a matter appear before a

clause for a hearing?) The district courts (which district court?) determined that the law’s

consideration of race and ethnicity in it admissions decisions violates the Equal protection

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964. Ms. Grutter

is asking whether or not (implied in whether) this set a percentage plan in the Michigan Law
School admission process. On appeal, tThe law school (which law school?)contends that its

interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under regents of University of

California V. Bakke 438 US 265, 98 S. ct 2733, 571 Ed 2d 750 (1978) and that its admission

policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest on appeal.

   The controlling case in this matter is Regents of the University of California V Bakke 438

US 265,98 S. ct. 2733, 571 Ed 2d 750 (1978). (isn’t this already implied in the previous

statement. If the implication is not clear, you might want to consider revising the previous

sentence and this one to void the redundancy that this sentence creates. It does not add any

value to the text.) A percentage plan for admitting first- time students to the University (what

university) had been in place for decades, but it had been accompanied by affirmative action

programs intended to augment minority representation in the student body. The affirmative

action programs were abandoned when the use of race was prohibited and the University

began seeking other means including modifications to the percentages plan and increased

outreach to ensure diversity among its students. However, the use of race prohibits the use of

percentages plans.(huh? Does having a racial make of students prevent the use of percentage

plans? Does the use of percentage plans prohibit the use of race in admissions criteria? Or, is

there something missing from this sentence? It is not clear to me as a reader why the use of

race is probitited and under what rationale such as using a percentage plan.)

   We can deduce that Ms. Grutter was decline denied admission solely on the basis of race

because she meets the admission requirements standards in terms of her applications as for as

LSAT Test score, grade point average, and other admission requirements. The critical

question guiding this matter, seems to be this: Can percentage plan alone achieve the goal of

equal educational opportunity? The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has concluded in 2000.
(delete this period to avoid creatign a fragment. Make the “t” in that a lowercase one so that

the tow sentences can be combined) That percentage plans had significant flaws and failed to

create diversity in undergraduate education. The result of Ms. Grutter being denied admission

was the same as the use of percentage by race, which was prohibited. It excludes the

Caucasian race from the percentage plans of admission of cacucasian. (HUH? This sentence

lacks sentence sense. Why are cacausians excluded form the percentage plan formula. Could

that be because the other races are compared to the white race in terms of proportions of the

student body? Or could it be because whites have not suffered from denied access to

educational opportunities such that their race has to play catch-up? Or could it be because

whites are still the majority and the inclusion of the majority race in a percentage plan would

only decrease the opportunities for minority candidates who have not had equal access to

education, equal access to capital—which is often a direct product of education-- and equal

longevity of freedom in society in general?) The Michigan Law School appeal of the Ddistrict

Court’s decision should be denied. Ms. Grutter’s argument that her fourteenth Amendment

right was violated the percentage plan constitutes a latent violation of Ms. Grutter's Ffourth

teenth Amendment rights with this set of facts that entitle her to relief. (HUH? I do not

understand this sentence. I think that you are trying to say that Ms. Gutter’s rights, as

guarantted under the Fourteenth Amendment, have not been violated. Therefore, her request

for relief should be denied. {But, I am not sure. I say consider the optiont hat I posed and

reword the rest of the sentence. Perhaps, you want to make it two sentences.)