The Supreme Court reconsidered affirmative action in 2003 in a pair of cases arising from admissions policies at the University of Michigan. In Grutter v. Bollinger the Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race, along with other factors, in attempting to obtain a diverse educational environment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, speaking for a 5 to 4 majority, endorsed the diversity rationale first set forth by Justice Powell in Bakke. She concluded that “the Equal Protection Clause 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.” In reaching this result Justice O’Connor stressed that “universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition” adopted a deferential approach to the academic decisions of universities. She also maintained that fixed racial quotas would be unconstitutional and pointed out that “”racial classifications, however compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous;” that race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in duration. O’Connor expressed the hope that racial preferences would no longer be necessary in twenty-five years. The four dissenting justices charged that the ostensibly flexible admissions program was in practice a carefully managed scheme to admit less qualified applicants from selected minority groups in violation of the equal protection clause.
In the companion case of Gratz v. Bollinger the Supreme Court placed some limits on the use of affirmative action in education. The justices, by a vote of 6 to 3, struck down the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions. At issue was a policy under which a number of points were automatically added to the selection index of every applicant from an “underrepresented” racial or ethnic minority group. Writing for the majority. Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that such a blanket racial preference was “not narrowly tailored” to achieve the asserted interest in diversity and thus ran afoul of the equal protection clause.
The two Michigan decisions appear to allow universities to give weight to an applicant’s membership in a racial minority in the context of an individualized admissions determination, but not as part of arbitrary formulas or quotas. Yet these rulings are unlikely to halt the controversy over affirmative action in higher education. Further litigation is almost a certainty. Among the unresolved issues are which racial or ethnic groups qualify for affirmative action in the name of diversity and the status of minority-only scholarships and campus housing. [Hall, Finkleman and Ely, 2005]
Facts: The University of Michigan Law School used race as one factor in a holistic admissions process to create a diverse student body, and a rejected applicant challenged it as unconstitutional.
Issue: Does using race in law school admissions to achieve diversity violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: No, the Court upheld the policy, ruling that narrowly tailored use of race in admissions is constitutional.
Reasoning: The Court said diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and universities can consider race as one factor as long as there are no quotas or automatic preferences.
Significance: This case is important because it affirmed that affirmative action in higher education can be legal under strict scrutiny, but only if it is limited, individualized, and temporary.
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 U.S 306 (2003)
Facts: University of Michigan law school use race as one factor in admissions
Issues: (1) Is diversity of compelling interest?
Decisions and Actions: (1) Yes
Reasoning: The court approved narrowly tailored review
Rule of Law: Limited race, conscious admissions are constitutional
Voting Coalitions: 5-4
Summary: The court upheld affirmative, action in higher education
Facts:
Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The school considered race as one factor in a holistic admissions process to achieve a diverse student body. Grutter sued, arguing this use of race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Issue:
Does a public university’s use of race as one factor in admissions decisions violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding:
No.
Reasoning:
The Court held that student body diversity is a compelling state interest in higher education. The law school’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored because it reviewed applicants individually and did not use racial quotas. The policy was flexible and treated race as one factor among many.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Facts:
The University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, a Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score.
The UMich Law School considered race as a factor of admission to create a diverse student body.
Grutter argued that using race as an admission factor violated the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the 1964 CRA.
Issue/Question:
Did the University of Michigan Law School violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment by using race as a factor for admissions?
Ruling:
Justice O’Connor delivered the Court’s 5-4 opinion; the Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court argued that there was a legitimate interest held by the school to create a diverse student body, and it was permissible through the Equal Protection Clause to use race as a factor among others. The Court also mentioned that the system did not “unduly harm non-minority applicants.” Justice O’Connor stated that these policies should not be permanent.
Significance:
The Grutter ruling re-affirmed that race-conscious policies for admission are constitutional when aimed to achieve diversity, as opposed to defined racial quotas.
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Facts: The University of Michigan Law School adopted an affirmative action policy to create a more diverse student body. Barbara Gutter was denied admission to the law school despite having strong academic standing.
Issue: Does the usage of race as a factor in admissions violate the 14th Amendment?
Holding: No
Reasoning: There is a compelling interest in obtaining a more diverse student body. The school explicitly avoided quotas
Significance: Protected the usage of race as a factor in admissions policy as long as it benefits the collective student body as a whole
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)
Facts: the city of Richmond, Virginia adopted a minority business enterprise program requiring that a certain percentage of city construction contracts be given to minority owned businesses. The city claims this was needed because minority contractors had historically excluded from public contracting opportunities. This was argued to be against the equal protection clause.
Issue: can a city use racial set asides in awarding public contract to remedy past discriminations without specific evidence?
Holding; no
Reasoning: the court holds that generalized claims of past recital discrimination are not enough to justify Rabhe preferences. Richmond needed specific evidence of discrimination in its own local contracting market.
Significance: government racial preferences in contracting, are subject to “strict scrutiny”, and must be back by specific evidence of past discrimination and be narrowly tailored
Please disregard, this is wrong post.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Facts: a white applicant was denied admission to the university of Michigan law. She argued at the schools, admission policy, used race as a factor in a way that unfairly disadvantages her compare compared to minority applicants.
Issue: does a public universities use of race as one factor and admissions, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment
Holding: no.
Reasoning: the court recognized the student body diversity is a compelling interest in higher education. The law School’s policy was not a court system, but a like quota system.
Significance: colleges and universities may consider recent admissions if it is part of a holistic review process aimed at achieving diversity and not Rigid quotas
Grutter v Bollinger (2003)
Facts:
– Grutter, a white woman, was denied admission to University of Michigan Law School.
– She was denied on basis of race. The school denied her application because they wanted to achieve diversity in their student population.
Issue: Did the University of Michigan Law School violate the 14th Amendments Equal protection clause?
Holding: No
Reasoning: Race can be used as a determining factor in the admission process, plus this was an affirmative action progression.
Significance: Affirmative action policies at the university level.
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Facts: Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The Law School considered race as one of many factors in its holistic admissions process to achieve a diverse student body. Grutter sued, claiming race‑based admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Question: Does the Equal Protection Clause prohibit the use of race as a factor in law school admissions to achieve a diverse student body?
Decision: No, 5‑4. The Law School’s admissions policy was upheld.
Reasoning: Diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest. The Law School’s holistic, individualized review of each applicant (including race as a “plus” factor) was narrowly tailored to achieve diversity. The Court deferred to the Law School’s educational judgment that diversity is essential.
Significance: The Court reaffirmed that race‑conscious admissions are constitutional when narrowly tailored to achieve diversity, distinguishing quota systems (struck down in Bakke). It also suggested that such policies should be unnecessary in 25 years.
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 US 306 (2003)
Facts: Barbara Grutter, a white woman, applied to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter had sufficient qualifications, but was denied admission. The law school used race to deny her admission because it had a “compelling interest in achieving diversity.”
Question(s): Did the University of Michigan Law School violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Holding: No; 5-4
Reasoning: The court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit schools from using race as a factor for admission decisions. The schools’ use of a variety of factors, including race, furthered their interests in creating a diverse environment. It did not “unduly harm non-minority applicants.”
Significance: Recognized affirmative action policies in higher learning education (BUT rejected the use of quotas or point systems). It allowed race to be considered a factor in admissions, acknowledging the lack of opportunities afforded to minority groups.
Grutter v. Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Facts: Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The school used a holistic admissions process that considered race as one factor among many to achieve a diverse student body. Grutter argued this violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Issue: Does a law school’s limited use of race in admissions to achieve educational diversity violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Holding: No. The Court upheld the policy, finding that the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race to pursue the compelling interest of diversity is constitutional.
Reasoning: Justice O’Connor emphasized that universities occupy a “special niche” in constitutional tradition and may consider race as part of an individualized review. The policy was flexible, not a quota, and aimed at the educational benefits of diversity. O’Connor also stressed that race‑conscious policies must be limited in duration, expressing hope they would no longer be needed in 25 years.
Significance: Affirmed that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education. Allowed race to be one factor in holistic admissions but rejected quotas or automatic point systems (as struck down the same day in Gratz v. Bollinger). Became the central precedent for affirmative action until it was overturned in 2023.
Grutter v. Bollinger
539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Facts: Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. The school considered race as one factor among many in its holistic admissions process to achieve a diverse student body. Grutter claimed this violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Issue: Does the use of race in a university’s admissions process to promote diversity violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Rule: Race-conscious admissions policies are permissible if they serve a compelling governmental interest (such as educational diversity) and are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the law school’s policy, ruling that narrowly tailored consideration of race to achieve student body diversity is constitutional.
Significance: Affirmed that diversity in higher education is a compelling interest under the Constitution. Allowed race to be one factor among many in admissions, but prohibited quota systems. Major precedent for affirmative action in higher education admissions.
Hello, I enjoy reading through your post. I wanted to write a little comment to support you.
My spouse and I stumbled over here from a different website and thought I should check things
out. I like what I see so now i am following
you. Look forward to checking out your web page
yet again.
Touche. Great arguments. Keep up the good work.
Excellent blog you’ve got here.. It’s difficult to find high-quality writing like yours nowadays.
I seriously appreciate people like you! Take care!!
I’d like to find out more? I’d care to find out more details.
Hello, I wish for to subscribe for this blog to obtain newest updates, thus where can i do it please assist.
You actually make it seem so eaay with your presentation but I find his opic to be reeally somethiing that I think
I would never understand. It seems too complex and
extremely broad for me. Iam looking forward for your next post, I’ll try too get the hang of it!
my webpage: escort service Ankleshvar
If you desire to improve your experience only keep visiting
this web site and be updated with the newest information posted here.
Matt SpringerMay 8, 2020
The SC supported UM Law school’s use of affirmative action. Citing Bakke, Justice O’Connor states “the Equal Protection Clause 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”. Additionally, I’ve done some reading into this, Asian Americans are not considered an ‘Underrepresented Minority” in law school. Idk if this, underrepresented minority, is affirmative action in action, but I found this an interesting find
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Julio Hernandez
Julio HernandezMay 2, 2020
The SCOTUS ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions. The University of Michigan is using affirmative action to allow a diversify student body.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Henry Jiang
Henry JiangApr 15, 2020
SC ruled that the University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a specific racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff was a black applicant who argued that the school used race as the “predominant factor” that give applicants in a certain minority group a better admission advantage than students with similar credentials from unflavored racial groups. However, the SC explained that the law school focuses on highly individualized review of every applicant, and there were acceptance or denial of admission automatically based solely on race and that the procedure guarantees that the other necessary factors contribute to the diversity of the school.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 23, 2019
The court decided that the law school’s use of racial preference in admission does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because the school conducts highly individualized reviews of each student and the schools decision is not soley based on race, but on other factor as well.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted userApr 16, 2014
Facts: Barbara Grutter, a white female, applied and was subsequently denied admission to the University of Michigan law school. At the time, Michigan law had a policy of giving certain minorities a greater chance of admission. Grutter sued the school.
Question: Does Michigan law school’s policy of using race as a factor in admission violate the Equal Protection clause?
Ruling: No, 5-4
Reasoning: The court held that the Equal Protection clause does not stop schools from achieving the compelling interest of a diverse student body. So long as race is not the only factor considered, and it does not prevent nonminority students from gaining admission, race may be taken into consideration in admissions.
Note:
The court also relied on the Bakke case from 25 years earlier in coming to this decision. They note that the University of Michigan policy was not a quota system, which would have been unconstitutional under Bakke. Instead, this case dealt with an individual evaluation of the candidates, using race as one diversity factor.
Victoria Latus T3
Reply
Comments above copied from original document