Grutter v. Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger

2003

What is the case about?

Whether a race-based affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

CASE FACTS

1. The University of Michigan Law School had an admissions policy designed to promote a diverse student body.

2. Specifically, the school sought a "critical mass" of minority students - enough so that none of the minority students would be made to feel like spokespersons for their race at the school.

3. To meet this goal, the school looked beyond test scores and GPAs, and looked at each application carefully.

4. According to expert analysis of the program, had race not been considered, the minority population at the school would have been 10 percent instead of 35 percent.

5. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant with a 3.8 GPA and a 161 LSAT score, challenged the law school's program on equal protection grounds after she was denied admission.

6. (A challenge to Michigan's undergraduate admission's program was decided the same day. In that case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court held that the program violated the Equal Protection Clause because it used race as a decisive factor in a mechanical fashion.)

ISSUE

Does The race-based affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School

... violate... the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment?

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE 14th Amendment

"No state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

RULE FOR governmental policies/actions that engage in voluntary, race-based affirmative action:

If such a government policy or action (does not have a compelling objective, OR does have a compelling objective but is designed in a way that is not narrowly tailored to achieve that objective, Then the government policy or action is unconstitutional and violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. [STRICT SCRUTINY]

What does the majority say about compelling objective?

Yes to Compelling State Interest:

a. Following Powell's opinion in Bakke, the attainment of a diverse student body can be a compelling state interest, provided race is only one factor used to achieve that goal. The law school's program in this case uses factors other than race to achieve diversity.

b. The law school's program produces substantial benefits, such as breaking down stereotypes and fostering cross-racial understanding. These benefits will enable students of all races to excel in business, government, and other fields.

What does the majority say about Narrowly Tailored?

Yes to Narrowly tailored:

a. The law school's concept of a "critical mass" is not the same as a quota, which would be prohibited by the Bakke precedent. The school's use of a highly individualized review of applications shows that it is not using a simple quota system.

Therefore

Therefore, the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action policy does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

HOLDING

No, the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

The University of Michigan Law School wins, and Barbara Grutter loses. Affirmed.

WHAT APPROACH TO CIVIL RIGHTS DID THE COURT TAKE IN THIS CASE?

Part liberal social justice, part conservative pro-military/pro-corporate logic.

DID THE COURT RULE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIVIDUAL?

The government.

Why and what was Grutter an important victory for?

Grutter was an important victory for the supporters of affirmative action, especially in the area of higher education. The Court held that educational diversity constitutes a compelling state interest and that affirmative action programs, if properly tailored, are a constitutionally acceptable means of achieving the state's goals.

Contrary to the findings in Gratz ...

the majority concluded that the law school's admissions process was based on a flexible, individualized consideration of applications in which race was only one of several diversity factors taken into account. Consistent with Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, race was a 'plus' in the application process. Race did not automatically determine acceptance or rejection. As such it met the majority's approval.

What guidelines does the Case provide

The Court's ruling provides constitutionally valid guidelines for affirmative action programs that other colleges and universities can use, but only where state laws do not otherwise prohibit the use of racial and ethnic preferences

What interests spoke on the value of affirmative action programs?

The Court seems to have relied heavily on the amicus curiae briefs by senior military leaders and by dozens of Fortune 500 corporations. "These interests, not usually advocates of liberal policies, spoke with powerful voices on the value of affirmative action programs, and O'Connor repeatedly quoted their positions in her opinion for the Court."