Grutter V. Bollinger Case Study

There have been many cases before the United States Supreme Court similar to Mary Hamilton’s, including one that is currently pending. In an ongoing case, Fisher v. University of Texas (2012), Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian female, filed a lawsuit against the University because she was denied admission. Fisher argued that the University was discriminating in its selections based on race. The University argued that the factor of race in the admissions process was solely in the interest of promoting educational diversity. If the admissions of a school call for measures to be taken to ensure diversity, then the policies in place must be reviewed under a standard of strict scrutiny to determine if they are precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest (oyez.org). In Fisher v. University of Texas, the examination of strict scrutiny was not sufficiently conducted and is going to be argued once more on December 9, 2015. In this situation, using the factor of race in an admissions process is

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Bakke (Respondent), a white applicant to Davis Medical School, California sued the University, alleging his denial of admission on racial grounds was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The first case that we will glimpse into is the case of Grutter versus Bolllinger. The case is centered around the idea of diversity in the form of race is a justifiable factor in the admission to a state law school. Barbra Grutter argued that the University of Michigan Law School was breaking the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act. Grutter hassled with the fact the minority students with the same credentials assumed a greater chance of admittance to the law school. Furthermore, the text goes on the explain one of the statement s manufactured by the prestigious law school, “Effective participation by members of all racial ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized.” (Rosenbloom) The university was not shy in explaining their concerns in the admission process.

Every year, millions of students apply to colleges and universities in the United States. The status of their application, whether they get accepted to or rejected by the school of their dreams, may ultimately be determined by two words: affirmative action. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines affirmative action as an effort to correct past injustices, means to right the wrongs of the past, positive steps to correct past discrimination (Affirmative 1). However, for those exceedingly qualified members of a majority group who do not get accepted while less qualified minority members do, affirmative action begins to insinuate reverse discrimination, the unfair treatment of members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Reverse 1). Affirmative action is a topic of contention that has been disputed in the court systems for roughly four decades. It is now time that affirmative action in college admissions be abolished because it erroneously implies that diversity is more imperative than merit and unjustifiably discriminates

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

In this particular case I find the matter of Fisher v. Texas case I find that the University of Texas should not be able to continue on with their policy. Even though Abigail Fisher applied and was not apart of the top 10 percent of her class, she was still a very competitive applicant. Considering the fact that she was ranked 82 out of her senior class 674 she was still at the top 12 percent of her class. Her application surplused most of the other minority students admitted in the second round of admittance. Abigail Fisher's should have been considered a contender as part of the University of Texas’s freshman class of 2009. She believes she was well prepared and would be able to succeed at the University.

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

I take issues with two major claims that are made by the petitioner. Ms. Fisher had argued that her opportunity to attend UT Austin has been denied purely on the basis of her race, and that she has suffered unequal treatments throughout the admission process. Given the evidences that have been reviewed by this court, Ms. Fisher’s presumption that she could have been placed at a more favorable position, had UT Austin not consider applicant’s race factor to against her, is simply ill founded. If anything, petitioner has showed a tendency to ignore the conclusive information and figures, and strong enthusiasm in defining UT’s enrollment diversity with bias numerical measures. Nevertheless, since Ms. Fisher’s application profile does not thrive

Other leaders in American society believe that the implementation of Affirmative Action policies should have a cut-off date. Justice Sander O’ Connor who presided over the landmark Affirmative Action case Grutter v. Bollinger (which upheld the Affirmative Action admission policy for the University of Michigan Law School) stated that "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today (Richman 69 )". This Statement reflects the Courts and Justice O’Connor’s belief “that a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend the fundamental principle of equal protection.” This statement seems to imply that affirmative action policies promotes reverse racism.

This clarifies that the purpose of race in admission is to achieve a “diverse” class. It should not be a substitute for individualized review of an applicant where it increases an applicant’s chances over others simply because of his or her race. This ruling became necessary as a result of the opponents of affirmative action rallying against a tool that helps to create equal access and diversity in higher education and further making their feelings heard clearly through the courts claiming that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Albeit, discrimination of white against black and/or minorities (Native American Indians) has been endemic from the inception of the Republic. It has furthermore taken up a greater part of our independent history before any form of reversal of such open practice of discrimination could be abolished, creating level playing fields for minorities. It seems therefore as folly to judge blacks by the same measures as whites, or minorities in the same way as whites. Is there any justification in trying to malign an educational policy that is trying to create a level playing field

In addition to this Putnam notes that communities with high diversity also contribute less to charity and community projects. The executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition responds to Putnam's reports by saying that “we cannot ignore the findings.” Not all reports, however, show the same response as Putnam's research. The 2003 Supreme Court case of Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger is a case over whether or not race should be used as a deciding factor for colleges and universities. In the argument, the University of Michigan Law School states that the admissions policy of “enrolling a critical mass of minority students” is purely for the benefit of all of its students. The university went on to say that “the Law School’s admissions policy promotes ‘cross-racial understanding,’ helps to break down racial stereotypes, and ‘enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.’” This argument highlights the benefits that diversity in communities can bring but does still not counter Putnam’s social

With the constant movement towards equality and diversity in colleges across the United States, issues relating to affirmative action laws and racial discrimination have become major factors in college acceptances. While it is argued that affirmative action breaks down racial barriers and ensures more diversity amongst student bodies, these laws make some minorities feel like they cannot succeed without a regulation, add tension to a society defined by skin color, and may serve as discrimination towards non-minorities. Affirmative action laws in college admissions should be eliminated to bring forth more equality for applicants.

The law permits the use of race as a factor; if it’s used for the purpose of retrieving past wrongdoings to those races (Sandel, 2007, pp.238). However, the use of these methods results in ethical issues by violating the right of equal treatment (Sandel, 2007, pp. 239). In addition, in the case of Bakke vs. Regents of the University of California the Supreme Court decided that Bakke should be permitted to incorporate to the school (Sandel, 2007, pp.238). The court’s verdict was influence by the fact that Bakke rights were violated; when he was rejected for being white (Sandel, 2007, pp.239). Furthermore, school admissions should not be based on race, because according to Sandel “Race should just not be a determining factor in admissions policy” (Sandel, 2007, pp.238). However, the prestigious schools that want to develop diversity in their school can use alternative methods. One of the methods could be as the one utilize by law school on acquiring a diversity of ethnics for learning purposes (Sandel, 2007, pp.244). Furthermore, this technique acquires a diverse society in the school, but it rather focuses on academics rather than

In “Arguing Affirmative Action,” Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel discusses the arguments that have arisen from the entry of affirmative action into practice. Affirmative action refers to admission policies, in this case put into effect by universities, that provide equal access to education for groups that have been historically excluded or underrepresented, such as women and minorities. In his essay, Sandel asks whether it is unjust to consider race and ethnicity as factors in university admissions. He expresses the argument that using race and ethnicity as factors are not effective in achieving the goals of affirmative action, and that other criteria such as economic class would help more students in need. I disagree with this argument and instead believe that it is just for race/ethnicity to be a factor in college admissions.