다문화사회에 있어서 다양한 학생집단의 실현방안에 관한 검토

• 영문명: A Study on the Promotion of the Diverse Group of Students in a Multi-cultural Society -Focused on Hopwood's case in the American Courts-
• 발행기관: 한국국가법학회
• 저자명: 김춘환(Kim Choon Hwan)
• 간행물 정보: 『국가법연구』국가법연구 제8집 1호, 1~24쪽, 전체 23쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2012.02.28

국문 초록

미국에서 Hopwood 사건은 Bakke 판결 이래 최초로 주립대학의 입학제도상 적극적 평등실현조치의 합헌성을 직접 다룬 사례이다. Croson 판결 및 Adarand 판결에서 제시된 바와 같이 최근 대법원은 주든 연방이든 정부기관의 적극적 평등실현조치에 대하여 엄격심사기준을 충족하는 경우에만 합헌이라는 입장을 취하고 있는데, 이 판결은 그 입장을 충실히 따르고 있다. 다양한 학생집단은 교육상 다양성의 가치 실현을 위한 중요한 교육적 자원이다. 다양성의 가치실현은 교육은 물론 사회 전반에 걸쳐 중요한 이익을 가져다 줄뿐만 아니라 민주적 시스템을 기능하게 하는 역할을 한다. 적극적 평등실현조치는 현재 인종적으로 불균형적인 경쟁결과는 과거 차별의 폐해에서 나온 불공정한 결과를 의미하는 것으로 이를 시정하기 위해 인종을 의식한 적극적 구제책이 필요하다는 것이다. 이러한 사고방식은 인종별ㆍ그룹별 결과에 착안하여 평등의 실현도를 측정하는 것으로 단순한 기회평등이 아니라 결과평등을 지향한다. 한편 적극적 평등실현조치는 개인주의 이념에 저촉되고 인종과 성별을 고려한 우선처우로서의 성격을 가지는 것이므로 그 대상이 아닌 다수 그룹으로부터 역차별이라는 비난을 받고 있다. 적극적 평등실현조치에 관한 시비는 미국의 국론을 이분하는 중요한 문제가 되고 있으며 동시에 동일한 차별문제로 구제조치를 모색하는 다른 나라의 정책에 큰 영양을 주고 있다. 이 연구는 텍사스 대학 로스쿨의 입학제도와 관련된 Hopwood 사건을 소재로 다양성의 가치실현을 위한 적극적 평등실현조치의 합헌성과 관련하여 사건개요, 판결요지, 엄격심사 기준하에서의 적극적 평등실현조치의 합헌성 및 판결에 대한 평가와 우리나라에의 시사점 등을 중심으로 검토하고 있다.

영문 초록

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from The University of Texas School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. After being rejected by the University of Texas School of Law in 1992, Cheryl J. Hopwood filed a federal lawsuit against the University on September 29, 1992 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Hopwood, a white female, was denied admission to the law school despite being better qualified than many admitted minority candidates. Originally, Hopwood's co-plaintiff was Stephanie C. Haynes, but Haynes was dismissed from the suit on February 11, 1993. Ultimately, three white males, Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, joined the existing lawsuit as plaintiffs alleging claims similar to Hopwood's. All had better combined LSAT and grade scores than 36 of the 43 Hispanics admitted, and 16 of the 18 blacks admitted. After an eight-day bench trial in May 1994, Judge Sparks issued his ruling on August 19, 1994. He determined that the University could continue to use the racial preferences which had been at issue in the litigation.[4] In his ruling, he noted that while it was "regrettable that affirmative action programs are still needed in our society," they were still "a necessity" until society could overcome its legacy of institutional racism. Thereupon, the four plaintiffs appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It heard appellate oral arguments in the case on August 8, 1995. Nearly two years after the original trial, on March 18, 1996, the Fifth Circuit issued its opinion, which was written by Circuit Judge Jerry E. Smith. The court held that "the University of Texas School of Law may not use race as a factor in deciding which applicants to admit in order to achieve a diverse student body, to combat the perceived effects of a hostile environment at the law school, to alleviate the law school's poor reputation in the minority community, or to eliminate any present effects of past discrimination by actors other than the law school." Judge Jacques Weiner concurred in the judgment. Rehearing was denied on April 4, 1996. The University appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the case on July 1, 1996. In an opinion on the denial of certiorari, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice David Souter, noted that the issue of the constitutionality of race in admission was "an issue of great national importance." However, Justice Ginsburg explained that the University was no longer defending the specific admissions policy that had been at issue in the lawsuit and was rather attempting to justify only the rationale for maintaining a race-based admissions policy. Accordingly, because the Supreme Court reviews judgments and not opinions, Justice Ginsburg stated that it "must await a final judgment on a program genuinely in controversy before addressing the important question raised in this petition." Thus, the Hopwood decision became the final law of the land with respect to the use of race in admissions in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (the three states over which the Fifth Circuit maintained jurisdiction). On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court abrogated Hopwood in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) in which the high court found that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The ruling means that u

목차

국문요약

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. Hopwood v. Texas 사건

Ⅲ. Hopwood 사건의 쟁점

Ⅳ. Hopwood v. Texas 판결에 대한 평가

Ⅴ. 결론

참고문헌

Abstract

키워드

적극적 평등실현조치 다양성 소수인종 기회평등 입학제도 엄격심사 affirmative action diversity minority equal protection strict scrutiny test