caa a22 4500 378872397 CHVBK 20180305123412.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161128e20030529xx s 000 0 eng 10.2202/1539-8323.1012 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)gruyter-10.2202/1539-8323.1012 Sabbagh Daniel 1Centre d'études et de Recherches Internationales (Paris), sabbagh@ceri-sciences-po.org Affirmative Action and the Group-Disadvantaging Principle [Elektronische Daten] [Daniel Sabbagh] This article starts by offering a more detailed account of how Fiss' argument in favor of the "group-disadvantaging principle" might be brought to bear on the affirmative action debate than the author actually provides, while suggesting that, appearances notwithstanding, his emphasis on group inequality at the level of constitutional theory does not require abandoning the tenets of liberal individualism at the level of moral and political theory. I will then attempt to explore further the institutional reasons why the courts failed to embrace the group-disadvantaging principle, thus linking this failure to two other major developments in past and present Equal Protection jurisprudence: Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson and Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. ©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston The Origins and Fate of Antisubordination Theory nationallicence Issues in Legal Scholarship De Gruyter 2/1(2003-05-29) 2:1 2003 2 ils https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1012 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1012 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Sabbagh Daniel 1Centre d'études et de Recherches Internationales (Paris), sabbagh@ceri-sciences-po.org NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Issues in Legal Scholarship De Gruyter 2/1(2003-05-29) 2:1 2003 2 ils CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-gruyter