GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER ET AL.
NO. 02-241, JUNE 23, 2003 The policy was clear that even the highest
O CONNOR, J.
RIVERA; GROUP 6
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Barbara Grutter
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Bollinger et al.
TOPIC:
Equal Protection Clause
TERMS:
critical mass - According to Erica Munzel,
Director of Admissions, this meant a meaningful
number, or a meaningful representation which
she understood to mean a number that
encourages underrepresented minority students
to participate in the classroom and not feel
isolated.
quota system - a program in which a certain
fixed number or proportion of opportunities are
reserved exclusively for certain minority
groups. Quotas impose a fixed number or
percentage which must be attained, or which
cannot be exceeded and insulate the individual
from comparison with all other candidates for the
available seats.
CASE SUMMARY:
Despite having a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, Barbara
Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied
admission to the University of Michigan. She attributed
such denial to the apparent racial discrimination the
university held against her. The Supreme Court held that
such policy is not unconstitutional because of the
presence of a compelling state interest coupled with a
narrowly tailored plan to carry out the goal.
PRECEDENTS:
Regents of University of California v. Bakke:
A state has a substantial interest that legitimately
may be served by a properly devised admissions
program involving the competitive consideration
of race and ethnic origin.
FACTS:
As one of the top law schools, the University of
Michigan sought to admit students who
individually and collectively, were among the
most capable. They looked for individuals whom
they believed would have substantial success in
law school and a strong likelihood of succeeding
in the practice of law and contributing in diverse
ways to the well-being of others.
Also, the law school sought a mix of students
with varying backgrounds and experiences who
would respect and learn from each other.
Thus, they implemented an admission policy
reflecting these goals.
Admission will be based on the ff:
o Academic ability coupled with a flexible
assessment of applicants talents,
experiences, etc.
o Personal statement, letters of
recommendation, essay.
o Undergraduate GPA, LSAT.
possible score did not guarantee admission to
the law school nor does a low score
automatically disqualify an applicant.
The policy required admission officials to look
beyond grades and test scores. They also made
use of soft variables such as:
o enthusiasm of recommenders
o quality of of applicants essay
o quality of undergrad institution
o areas and difficulty of undergrad course
The policy aspired to achieve diversity. By
enrolling a critical mass (see terms) of
underrepresented minority students, the law
school sought to ensure their ability to make
contributions to the character of the law school.
o Policy did not define diversity solely in
terms of racial and ethnic status. Nor
was it insensitive to the competition
among all students for admission.
o Rather, the policy sought to guide
admissions officers in producing
classes both diverse and
academically outstanding.
Petitioner Barbara Grutter was a WHITE
Michigan resident who applied in 1996 with a 3.8
GPA and 161 LSAT score. WEW.
o Waitlisted and eventually rejected. :(
Grutter filed suit. She alleged that respondents
discriminated against her on the basis of
race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
o Further alleged that her application was
rejected because the law school used
race as a predominant factor, giving
minority applicants a significantly greater
chance of admission compared to
students with similar credentials from
disfavored racial groups.
o Also alleged that respondents had no
compelling interest to justify their use of
race in the admissions process.
District Court ruled that the law schools use of
race as a factor in admissions was unlawful.
o Schools interest in assembling a
diverse student body was not
compelling.
o Even if it were compelling, law school
had not narrowly tailored its use of race
to further that interest.
CA reversed District Courts judgment.
o Establishing diversity was a compelling
state interest.
o Use of race was narrowly tailored.
ISSUES:
WON the use of race as a factor in student
admissions is unlawful.
RULING:
1st issue: Denied.
o Policy was deemed constitutional. The
law school has a compelling interest in a
diverse student body.
o All racial classifications imposed by the
government must be analyzed by a
reviewing court under strict scrutiny.
Such classifications are
constitutional ONLY if they are
narrowly tailored to further
compelling governmental
interests.
o Justification of respondents for their
policy: obtaining the educational benefits
that flow from a diverse student body.
This assessment is
substantiated by respondents
and their amici.
o This diverse student body is at the heart
of the law schools proper institutional
mission, and that good faith on the part
of a university is presumed, absent a
showing to the contrary.
o The law schools interest is not simply to
assure within its student body some
specified percentage of a particular
group merely because of its race or
ethnic origin.
Considered racial balancing.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
o Benefits of the policy:
promotes cross-racial
understanding which helps to
break down racial stereotypes
and enables students to better
understand persons of different
races.
classroom discussion will be
livelier, more spirited, etc., when
students have the greatest
possible variety of backgrounds.
o Amici, expert studies, and reports
support the compelling interest argued
by respondents.
Student body diversity promotes
learning outcomes and better
prepares students for an
increasingly diverse workforce
and society.
Benefits are not theoretical but
real. Major American
businesses have made clear
that the skills needed in todays
increasingly global marketplace
can only be developed through
exposure to widely diverse
people, cultures, ideas, and
viewpoints.
Even US military supports this
idea.
o Regarding it being narrowly tailored:
The Equal Protection Clause
does not prohibit the law
schools 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.
To be considered narrowly
tailored, a race-conscious
admissions program cannot
use a quota system. It cannot
insulate each category of
applicants with certain desired
qualifications from competition
with all other applicants.
Instead, a university may
consider race or ethnicity only
as a plus in a particular
applicants file.
o In other words, an admissions program
must be flexible enough to consider all
pertinent elements of diversity in light of
the particular qualifications of each
applicant, and to place them on the
same footing for consideration, al-
though not necessarily according them
the same weight.
o The Court considered that the Law
Schools admissions program bears the
hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan.
o The goal of attaining critical mass of
underrepresented minority students
does not transform its program into a
quota.
The minority members in each
class varied from 13.5% to
20.1%, a range inconsistent
with a quota.
o When using race as a plus factor in
university admissions, the program
must remain flexible enough to ensure
that each applicant is evaluated as an
individual and not in a way that makes
an applicants race or ethnicity the
defining feature of his or her
application.
o Here, the Law School engages in a
highly individualized, holistic review of
each applicants file, giving serious
consideration to all the ways an
applicant might contribute to a diverse
educational environment. The Law
School affords this individualized
consideration to applicants of all races.
o There is no policy, either de jure or de
facto, of automatic acceptance or
rejection based on any single soft
variable.
o The Law Schools race-conscious
admissions program adequately ensures
that all factors that may contribute to
student body diversity are meaningfully
considered alongside race in admissions
decisions.
o What is more, the Law School actually
gives substantial weight to diversity
factors besides race. The Law School
frequently accepts nonminority
applicants with grades and test scores
lower than underrepresented minority
applicants (and other nonminority
applicants) who are rejected.
o Narrow tailoring does not require
exhaustion of every conceivable race-
neutral alternative. Narrow tailoring
does, however, require serious, good
faith consideration of workable race-
neutral alternatives that will achieve the
diversity the university seeks.
The Law School sufficiently
considered workable race-
neutral alternatives.
A lottery will not work. It will
sacrifice many values. Neither
should the Law School lower
admission standards.
o Make a termination point. 25 years from
now, the use of racial preferences
should no longer be necessary to further
the interest approved in this case.