Case Summary : Grutter V. Bollinger

Two more cases that aroused much debate on the issue were the 2003 cases of Gratz vs. Bollinger and Grutter vs. Bollinger, in which two more-than-qualified students applied to the University of Michigan and were denied due to acceptance policies. The two women, Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, took their cases to the Supreme Court with the plea that the University of Michigan is “treating people differently based on skin color, and that is unconstitutional” (Mears). The university openly stated that they have a point system in their acceptance process in which students receive extra point if they are of minority status. Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan stated, “[W]e

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

This case involves the Plaintiff, Kelly Pryor, and the Defendant, National Collegiate Athletic Association, in a complex argument that involves racial discrimination under Title VI and the NCAA adoption of Proposition 16 as well as Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation claims. The court must carefully consider the claims Pryor has brought forth and determine if the discrimination of Proposition 16 was purposefully adopted by adding certain education requirement to ultimately hinder the amount of scholarships awarded to incoming black student athletes. Throughout this case analysis, I will weigh the different evidence presented from both parties and report the court’s reasoning for decisions made in Pryor v.

Plaintiff – “The plaintiff is defending a nineteen-year-old Latino male who was admitted to UMCP in the fall of 1989. As an applicant to UMCP, claimant had an accomplished scholastic record: his Scholastic Aptitude Test score was 1340, out of a possible 1600; his grade point average as calculated by his high school was over 4.0 (as calculated by UMCP, his grade point average was 3.56); and he actively participated in several extracurricular activities.” (Podberesky v. Kirwan, 956F. 2d-52- court of Appeals, 4th Circuit 1992, 1992) Because of his academic pedigree, the Hispanic male wants to be considered for admittance as well as university scholarships. The scholarship that he would like to be considered for is for African American students until it was revised to include minority students.

Another case involving the affirmative action policies was the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. This is another case of “seat holding” in where the school admission policy was reserving a number of sets for minority applicants. Bakke, a white applicant, was denied twice to the medical school. Minorities were allowed admittance with low-test scores though Bakke had high MCAT scores, GPA, and benchmarks (McBride, 2007). The result of the whole trial was that the California Supreme Court found that the system explicitly discriminated against racial groups and stated, “No applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less, as measured by standards applied without regard to race,” (McBride, 2007). The medical school was then ordered to shut down their quota system.

Having done so it would still need to be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly injure any associated groups or individuals. Powell determined that attaining a diverse student body in an institution of higher education was a compelling state interest. In order to be narrowly tailored to this interest, the institution should use race as a "plus" factor. The quota system that the University of California applied set aside positions for minority students and focused on having a diverse statistical surface rather than attaining actual diverse backgrounds. Rather, as was done at Harvard, it was expected that all students should be considered together and race used as a bonus for minorities that would help account for the special perspective such students could bring to the campus (Schauer 589-597). While Powell's outline for programs had plenty of dissenters, none of them ever made it to a prominent position in the court system and so, since 1978, the rules of Bakke have been the proverbial law of the land. That is, until recently.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court claimed that using affirmative action in admission processes was perfectly legal. As stated by the Supreme Court in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the racially-based admissions decisions might be valid, however the law in question did not meet the strict scrutiny test since there was no evidence that those discriminated against by Harvard’s admissions policies would have benefitted had the policies not been in place (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke). Therefore, the court did not find the University of California to be in breach of the Constitution. The court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger also approved affirmative action programs in ruling that it was reasonable for universities to put quotas in place in attempt

In 2003, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on a case challenging the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action program, ultimately declaring the scheme unconstitutional. The admission scheme was based generally on a 150 point scale system in which the Office of Admission assigned points based on a number of factors, including high school grades, standardized test scores, high school quality, alumni strength, and leadership; if a student fell within the 100-150 point range, he or she would be admitted to the school. However, an applicant automatically received a bonus of 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission if he or she possessed any one of the following “miscellaneous” factors: membership in an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority (which included African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans), attendance to a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or recruitment for athletics. And yet, even though the Court struck down this scheme by holding it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it did so on the basis that the University of Michigan scheme itself was too broad and thus discriminatory on its face; it did not strike down the notion of affirmative action in any way (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). In fact, the same day this ruling came down, the Supreme Court issued another ruling that upheld the University of Michigan Law

The case of Gratz/Grutter V. Bollinger is actually two cases, but not only are they about the same thing they are against the same school. It started with Gratz, a young white woman that applied to the university of Michigan, despite having extremely high marks for her grades and recommendations from teachers she was denied admission due to a spot already being filled by an “underrepresented minority”. In fact with her credentials and grades she had less than a 10% chance of getting accepted but if she had been a minority her chance would have been 100%. She took it to the district court where judge Duggan who overlooked the Gratz case ruled that the system in which the university of Michigan used was unconstitutional. In response to this

& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).

The dilemma of affirmative action is defining equal opportunities, especially to those ethnicities who were historically wronged.The famous U.S landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where Allan Bakke, a white man, was twice rejected to University of California Medical School at Davis, ruled that racial quotas “violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment”, however race can serve a part as one admission criteria. Today California has

However, affirmative action policies raise up questions about whether they are constitutional or not. The programs may even conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Furthermore, recently, some people debate that certain school’s admissions have deliberated race as an advantaged factor for accepting applicants. These actions are obviously unconstitutional (Clarkson, Miller, and Cross 697). To go over the context of the book and cover more on affirmative action, this paper will talk further about the background on affirmative action, affirmative action’s coverage on different fields, cases law, and the possible “outcomes” of the affirmative

Gratz v. Bollinger, was the case that determined the legitimacy of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both applied for and were denied admission to the University of Michigan between 1995 and 1997. At the time, to be accepted to the university a candidate had to have a score of 100 points with minorities receiving automatic 20 points (Gratz v. Bollinger 12). In 2003, The Supreme Court ruled University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote the University's point system “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" (GRATZ V. BOLLINGER 3). Grutter v. Bollinger, was the 2003 case where the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. Barbara Grutter, who was rejected from the school, filed the suit believing that she had been discriminated against because of her race. In a five-to-four majority, the Supreme Court ruled that the law school could use race as a factor without violating the 14th Amendment. Justice O'Connor, wrote that the Constitution "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" (GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER 2).In 2006, Proposal 2 also known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was passed which means Affirmative Action was banned from all public institutions. The constitutionality of the amendment was challenged in federal court leading to the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision in 2014 upheld Proposal 2 saying "that there is no authority...for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether

Even today, affirmative action remains a hotly debated topic. In early 2003, groups of college students held rallies and protests, in support of and opposing affirmative action, leading up to legal briefs concerning the University of Michigan’s admissions policy were due to the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Grutter v.

The dilemma of affirmative action is defining equal opportunities, especially to ethnicities who historically felt injustice.The famous U.S landmark case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), where Allan Bakke, a white man, was twice rejected to University of California Medical School at Davis, ruled that racial quotas “violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment”, however race can serve a part as one