research

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER, et al

Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke .

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer concurred in judgment, but stated that they did not subscribe to the Court's belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's "plus" system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited the fact that the percentage of African American applicants closely mirrored the percentage of African American applicants that were accepted.

Justice Kennedy also dissented separately, arguing that the Court failed to apply, in fact, strict scrutiny as required by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke . Both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas also dissented separately.

ANALYSIS

June 23, 2003 -- In its first ruling on affirmative action in higher education admissions in 25 years, the nation's highest court ruled Monday that race can be used in university admission decisions. But the narrowly divided court also seemed to put limits on how much of a factor race can play in giving minority students an advantage in the admissions process. The U.S. Supreme Court justices decided on two separate but parallel cases -- they voted 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan's law school affirmative action policy, which favors minorities. But in a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down the affirmative action policy for undergraduate admissions, which awards 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans on an admissions rating scale. The cases tested whether the university is allowed to discriminate because it values diversity in its student body, or whether discrimination is only justified to reverse past racial injustice. The pivotal case, Grutter v. Bollinger, involved the university's law school. Barbara Grutter, who is white, applied for admission there in 1996. She was rejected. She investigated and found out that African Americans and ethnic minorities who had lower overall admissions scores were admitted. Grutter sued, saying she was a victim of illegal discrimination. Grutter's lawyers argued that the admissions program at the university's law school was unconstitutional. They based the argument on a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the court ruled that a school could take race and ethnicity into account -- but couldn't use quotas. Instead, admissions programs must be "narrowly tailored" to harm as few people as possible. Grutter and her supporters won the first round in U.S. District Court, but lost in a close decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The majority of appellate court justices sided with the university view that a diverse student body has its own benefits, and that a "points" system for admission that takes the race of the applicant into account in an overall score wasn't a quota. Grutter appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in Grutter, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." In the undergraduate case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the 6-3 majority ruled the points system violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of race was not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the university's diversity goals.

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION AND SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS:

Is affirmative action still necessary for guaranteeing equal access to educational opportunities at elite universities and graduate schools? Should admissions decisions be based solely on academic criteria and merit?