 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
|
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests
Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission. In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied." The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability." |
|
|
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
2003 |
|
Chapter |
5 |
Title |
Equality and the Constitution |
|
Page |
571 |
Topic |
Heightened Scrutiny and the Problem of Race |
|
Quick Notes |
Grutter, a white law school applicant that was denied admission, brought Equal Protection suit to challenge the University of Michigan Law School's Admission policy of relying on an applicant's race in the admissions decision.
Rule o Racial classifications must be narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling state interest.
Application o Educational diversity is a compelling state interest.
OConnor Summary o Under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, student body diversity serves a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in the admissions process. o To withstand a constitutional challenge, however, a race-based admissions policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest. o To be narrowly tailored to its compelling interest, a law school may not use an applicant's race to meet a predetermined quota, but may use race as a "plus" when admitting an otherwise eligible applicant.
Thomas Summary o Many of these students are admitted with dreams of obtaining a law degree from a prestigious school only to find failure in the face of competition among the student body. o Yet, had these students attended a less-elite school with other students of like caliber, their legal education may very well be enhanced, and their successes more easily achieved. |
||
|
Book Name |
Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet. ISBN: 978-0-7355-7719-0 |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether the use of race as a factor in student admissions is unlawful? No. o Whether a law school may use race as a factor in student admissions? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o The trial court concluded that the policy was unlawful and granted an injunction. |
|
Appellant |
o Sitting en banc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the judgment and vacated the injunction. |
|
Supreme |
o Affirmed Circuit Court |
|
Facts |
Discussion |
Key Phrases |
Rules |
|
Pl - Grutter Df - Bollinger
Description o Grutter, a white law school applicant, brought suit to challenge the University of Michigan Law School's policy of relying on an applicant's race in the admissions decision. o The University Of Michigan Law School's admissions policy required school officials to consider the grades, personal statements, personal recommendations, and other scholastic criteria in accepting candidates for school admission. o The policy also emphasized the inclusion of candidates from racial or ethnic groups historically victimized by discrimination to foster racial and ethnic diversity in the student body. o Grutter ,a white candidate, brought suit when her application was denied because the school's policy relied upon race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. |
Justice OConnor
Section II A
Touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies Bakke o Public and private universities across the Nation have modeled their own admissions programs on Justice Powell's views. o The Court endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest in the context of university admissions.
Section II B
All racial classifications are subject to Strict Scrutiny o All racial classifications imposed by the government must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.
Not All racial classifications are invalided by Strict Scrutiny o When race-based action is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest, such action does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection so long as the narrow-tailoring requirement is also satisfied.
Section III - A
Question o Whether the use of race as a factor in student admissions is unlawful?
Degree of deference to universitys academic decisions o Goal of assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically qualified and broadly diverse. o Goal it to benefit for a racially diverse classroom that has livelier discussion and simply more enlightening.
ROTC o Uses limited race recruiting to achieve both a highly qualified and racially diverse office corps.
Universities are the training grounds for our nations leaders. Sweatt v. Painter o Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. o Access to legal education (and thus the legal profession) must be inclusive of talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity, so that all members of our heterogeneous society may participate in the educational institutions that provide the training and education necessary to succeed in America.
Section III B
Narrowly tailored Cannot use quota system o A race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system--it cannot "insulate each category of applicants with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants." Bakke, supra, at 315, 57 L Ed 2d 750.
Narrowly tailored Race is a Plus o Instead, a university may consider race or ethnicity only as a "'plus' in a particular applicant's file," without "insulating the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats."
Some attention to numbers is okay o There is of course "some relationship between numbers and achieving the benefits to be derived from a diverse student body, and between numbers and providing a reasonable environment for those students admitted o "Some attention to numbers," without more, does not transform a flexible admissions system into a rigid quota.
In this Case o The Law School engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment. o The Law School affords this individualized consideration to applicants of all races. There is no policy, either de jure or de facto, of automatic acceptance or rejection based on any single "soft" variable. o Unlike the program at issue in Gratz v Bollinger, ante, the Law School awards no mechanical, predetermined diversity "bonuses" based on race or ethnicity.
Grutter Arg Not Narrowly Tailored o The Law School's plan is not narrowly tailored because race-neutral means exist to obtain the educational benefits of student body diversity that the Law School seeks.
Court - We disagree - Narrow tailoring requires race-neutral alternatives o Narrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative. o Nor does it require a university to choose between maintaining a reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to provide educational opportunities to members of all racial groups. o Narrow tailoring does, however, require serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.
Lottery o Would sacrifice educational values and mission.
High School Percentage Plan o May preclude individualized assessments necessary to assemble a diverse student body.
Sun Set Race Conscious Provisions o Periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary to achieve study body diversity.
University of Michigan Law School Goal o Trying to find a race-neutral admissions formula. o Terminate racial conscious admissions program as soon as possible.
Justice Thomas Joins Part I-VII, Concurring in part and dissenting in part
Frederick Douglass o Do nothing with us! o Give him a chance to stand on his own legs!
Section I o Measures a State must take constitute a pressing public necessity.
Section III B
No pressing public necessity o There is not pressing public necessity in maintain a PUBLIC law school at all, and certainly not an ELITE law school. o Some states dont even have an ABA accredited law school.
No Compelling state interests o Less than 16% of Michigan Law School students practice in Michigan. o It has become a way-station for the rest of the countries lawyers.
Section IV Minimum Qualifications Method
Minimum Qualifications Method o With the adoption of different admissions methods, such as accepting all students who meet minimum qualifications, the Law School could achieve its vision of the racially aesthetic student body without the use of racial discrimination.
B-1
Heterogeneity Impairs learning among black students.
Homogeneity is racial segregation.
C
Berkley o Satisfied mission without resulting to racial discrimination.
Section V
Certificate System o Where a person would be admitted to a school if they complete the course offered by the school.
Selective Admissions o The vehicle for racial, ethnic, and religious tinkering.
LSAT o Comes with Constitutional burdens.
Equal Protection Forbids, but the Court TODAY allows o The use of merit based standards WITH racial discrimination.
Section VI Overmatched students take bait
Elite Schools o Tantalize unprepared overmatched students. o Find out they cannot succeed in the competition. o No evidence they receive a better legal education. o Stigma of which black were admitted because of race or because of merit.
Less Elite Schools o Better prepared.
Thomas Summary o Many of these students are admitted with dreams of obtaining a law degree from a prestigious school only to find failure in the face of competition among the student body. o Yet, had these students attended a less-elite school with other students of like caliber, their legal education may very well be enhanced, and their successes more easily achieved.
Section VII imprimatur (Official approval)
Color-Blind Constitution o Our Constitution is color blind. o Our nation has adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. o No we must wait another 25 years to see this principal of equality vindicated. |
||
|
Rules |
|
Rule o Racial classifications must be narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling state interest.
Application o Educational diversity is a compelling state interest.
|
|
Supplement |
|
Thomas' dissent:
|
|
Class Notes |
|
|