Affirmative Action in Law School

Affirmative Action in Law School One of the most controversial recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action was Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which ruled that the affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law School was constitutional, given that it was not a quota system, but merely took race into consideration when making decisions about student admission.

Yet according to Amir Efrati, in a provocatively-titled 2007 editorial for the online Wall Street Journal, "Is affirmative action at law school actually hurting minorities:" "minority students who gain special admission to better-regarded law schools based on their race end up in academic settings for which they aren't qualified, leading to lower grades and bar passage rates than if they had been admitted to a school that doesn't use racial preferences" (Efrati 2007). Efrati cites a study conduced by the U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights that "found that black and white law students granted admission to a school based on similar credentials earned roughly the same grades and passed the bar at a similar rate. But black law students given preferential treatment over white students -- that is, admitted to a school despite lesser qualifications than their white counterparts -- had poorer grades and bar-exam results, and higher attrition rates, than whites who attended the same school" (Efrati 2007).

Efrati implies that affirmative action does more harm than good to minorities as well as whites: but one online commentator pointed out that students going to the top law schools with high LSATs and grades usually have enough money to have substantial test preparation, time to do unfunded internships before law school, and are less apt to have to work to support their studies while in law school.

Individuals admitted through affirmative action programs might have fewer opportunities of that nature, and thus be more in need of support to make the transition.