Grutter v. Bollinger | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Grutter v. Bollinger was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admissions process. The University of Michigan Law School denied acceptance to Barbara Grutter, despite her impressive resume. Grutter, a white woman, believed that her rejection was based on her race. The Supreme Court Justices ultimately ruled that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. Incorporation, the process of states being held liable to the Bill of Rights, allowed the Supreme Court to hear and rule on the case.
However, there was doubt among the most conservative Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Rehnquist that affirmative action policy was a constitutional practice for university admission departments to take part in. Affirmative Action is still a highly debated topic today.
What is Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action is a policy, usually carried out by schools, businesses, government entities, and federal contractors, in which individuals of minority racial status are afforded preferential treatment on the basis of race. Affirmative action came about as part of a desire to rectify the traditional underrepresentation of minority peoples in desirable professions and universities, which negatively impacted their financial and social conditions.
0:01 Can a university use racial preference in the student admission process as a way to promote diversity in their school? Last week, we examined the racial discrimination that prompted affirmative action policies with the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges may take race into account as one of many factors when considering
0:23 admissions to a school, as long as they do not use racial quotas. The 2003 Supreme Court case of Grutter v. Bollinger helps us further explore the questions surrounding affirmative action. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan’s Law School came under question for its admissions policies. The law school was seeking to admit a critical mass of minority students.
0:45 What is critical mass? Well, while the university did not give a detailed definition of critical mass, it is understood to mean that no minority student feels as though he or she is in the spotlight as the token member of a minority group. The university also highlighted that they have a compelling interest in the policy as a diverse student body has a positive impact on their educational institution.
1:09 Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. While touting a strong GPA and LSAT, she was still denied admission. She argued that the law school’s use of racial preferences in student admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
1:30 In a narrow five to four vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the university and its policy, citing it as being narrowly tailored. The majority was convinced that the school conducted a highly individualized review of each applicant where no student was automatically rejected or accepted based on race. The Court also wrote, we expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no
1:53 longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. But there were several justices who wrote dissents to this ruling. Justice Rehnquist and Scalia in particular, believe the admission statistics proved there were unconstitutional behind the scenes quotas and that the critical mass explanation was unconvincing. In response to the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas,
2:15 the second African American to serve on the Court, noted that the Constitution means the same thing today as it will in 300 months, while expressing his beliefs that the law school did in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause. It also is important to note that Grutter v. Bollinger, concerning the University’s law school, was argued the same day as Gratz v. Bollinger,
2:36 another case which challenged a different University of Michigan admission policy. That specific policy granted extra bonus points to minority students applying to their undergraduate school. This policy, on the other hand, was ruled unconstitutional as the extra bonus point system resulted in the acceptance of nearly anyone with underrepresented minority status,
2:57 clearly violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decisions in these cases did not entirely clarify the constitutionality of affirmative action policies. The question of how to provide access and equity to diverse students while simultaneously ensuring that candidates are objectively accepted into a school is still controversial and has been debated
3:18 as recently as the 2016 Supreme Court case of Fisher v. Texas. For more information on this and many other important court cases throughout history, be sure to check out the other videos in our Homework Help series.