Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Introduction

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Introduction -The case Gutter v. Bollinger (2003) was a 5-4 United States Supreme Court case that upheld the affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan Law School (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The case was an important look at the way affirmative action impacts the nation's professional school systems and the impact that affirmative action has on highly qualified non-minority students. Barbara Grutter was the plaintiff, Lee Bolling, President of the University of Michigan, representing the University. Grutter was represented by the Center For Individual Rights, while the 41 Intervenors were represented by Scheff and Washington (Randall, 2010)

The Case -- The University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Grutter, a Caucasian Michigan resident who had a 3.8 GPA and an LSAT score of 161. Grutter alleged that the school discriminated against her on the basis of race and in violation of the 14th Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; that her race rather than qualification was used as a predominant factor in the application process, and that applications with a minority status received undue consideration for placement (The VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1964). The District Court for Michigan found the use of race as an admission criteria unlawful, but the 6th Court reversed the decision, believing that establishing diversity in programs is an interest of the state. Further, they found that race was a potential factor, and not a deciding factor in admission. The case then went to Federal District Court

Viewpoint - Gutter's attorneys posited that during the 1980s the evidence showed that there was a large allowance given to mintority students who were in the same band or slightly lower than White students. Further, they argued that in modern society it was absurd and socially regressive to apply racially-based standards to professional schools. The University's position indicated that it was essential to have a critical mass of minority students enrolled in professional schools. The Intervenors testified that they had a much more difficult time in public school and therefore an unequal chance at professional school without some form of racial consideration (The Grutter Decision, 2002).

Supreme Court Decision -- The majority opinion of the Court, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the school's use of race as a partial criteria in addressing a social policy for the school was valid, and the Constitution does not legally prohibit a narrowly tailored use of race in the decision making process of admission. This reaffirmed that public universities and other public institutions can use race as a plus factor in admissions -- it may not be the only factor, but it may be a contributing factor. Dissent in the case was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who found that the process of using race as a positive for admission was just as illegal as using it for a negative. If, they concluded, higher institutions had to resort to using race as a factor for admission in order to create "balance," then the institution's admissions policies were flawed (Grutter v. Bollinger).