Grutter vs bollinger

Diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the narrowly tailored use of race when public universities select applicants for admission.

Grutter v. Bollinger - Amicus (Merits)

Narrow tailoring, therefore, requires that a race-conscious admissions program not unduly harm members of any racial group. The Constitution intrudes on the university admissions process only by preventing public universities from making admissions decisions based on race, except as a narrowly tailored response to a compelling interest.

The District Court took the Law School to task for failing to consider race-neutral alternatives such as "using a lottery system" or "decreasing the emphasis for all applicants on undergraduate GPA and LSAT scores.

This Court has repeatedly condemned quotas as unconstitutional, and respondents cannot escape the reach of those cases by pursuing a purportedly flexible, slightly amorphous "critical mass" in lieu of the kind of rigid numerical quotas struck down by this Court in Bakke.

Affirmative Action: Court Decisions

Their class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment Case[ edit ] The University of Michigan used a point scale to rank applicants, with points needed to guarantee admission.

The policy does not define diversity "solely in terms of racial and ethnic status. See United States v. Even with this decline, however, the University of Florida has maintained a significant minority representation under its race-neutral admissions policy. But these alternatives would require a dramatic sacrifice of diversity, the academic quality of all admitted students, or both.

Fisher I set forth these controlling principles, while taking no position on the constitutionality of the admissions program at issue in this case.

But these alternatives would require a dramatic sacrifice of diversity, the academic quality of all admitted students, or both. This Court granted certiorari for a second time, U.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system-it cannot "insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants.

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The Law School at the University of Michigan offers admission to an estimated applicants and enrolls approximately students each year. The case generated a record number of amicus curiae briefs from institutional supporters of affirmative action.

With respect to the use of race itself, all underrepresented minority students admitted by the Law School have been deemed qualified.

O'Connor's opinion answers the question for the time being as to whether "diversity" in higher education is a compelling governmental interest. In a part of his opinion that was joined by no other Justice, Justice Powell expressed his view that attaining a diverse student body was the only interest asserted by the university that survived scrutiny.

But the same could be said of the Harvard plan discussed approvingly by Justice Powell in Bakke, and indeed of any plan that uses race as one of many factors. Under this race-neutral admissions policy, "pre-Hopwood diversity levels were restored by or in the admitted and enrolled populations and have held steady.

The Plan was mandated by the Texas Legislature in the wake of Hopwood, so the University, like petitioner in this litigation, has likely taken the Plan as a given since its implementation in Properly understood, a "quota" is a program in which a certain fixed number or proportion of opportunities are "reserved exclusively for certain minority groups.

Now, however, race is given weight as a subfactor within the PAI. In other words, only 21 percent of undergraduate classes with five or more students in them had more than one African-American student enrolled.

Petitioner alleged that respondents discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of78 Stat. Harvard certainly had minimum goals for minority enrollment, even if it had no specific number firmly in mind.

New Hampshire, U. In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. The decision produced six separate opinions, none of which commanded a majority of the Court.

Board of Education, U. Dissent[ edit ] Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing.

Brief for 3M et al. He testified that in35 percent of underrepresented minority applicants were admitted. Moreover, the program is flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application.

This means that such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.

Formalistic racial classifications may sometimes fail to capture diversity in all of its dimensions and, when used in a divisive manner, could undermine the educational benefits the University values.

They may also adopt admissions policies that seek to promote experiential, geographical, political, or economic diversity in the student body, which are entirely appropriate race-neutral governmental objectives.

Gratz v. Bollinger; Grutter v. Bollinger

Brief for Respondent Bollinger et al.Grutter v. Bollinger. Case Summary The United State Supreme Court case of Grutter v. Bollinger ( U.S.() is a case which upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.

The United States Supreme Court was announced the extremely tight decision of on June 23, Grutter v. Bollinger, U.S. (), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law dfaduke.come Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling.

Gratz v. Bollinger, U.S.


(), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23,Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to.

no. 02— barbara grutter, petitioner v. lee bollinger et al. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit [june 23, ].

Lee C. Bollinger is the nineteenth President of Columbia University since June 1, A prominent advocate of affirmative action, he played a leading role in the twin Supreme Court cases--Grutter v Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger that upheld and clarified the importance of diversity as a compelling justification for affirmative action in higher education.


Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)

BAKKE, () No. Argued: October 12, Decided: June 28, The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of students - the regular admissions program and the special admissions program.

Grutter vs bollinger
Rated 3/5 based on 20 review