Lee Bollinger then-President of the University of Michiganwas the named defendant of this case.
The United States Department of Education has parallel responsibility for the administrative enforcement of federal civil rights laws affecting educational institutions, including Title VI.
The Law School at the University of Michigan offers admission to an estimated applicants and enrolls approximately students each year.
Inthe full faculty at the Law School adopted its current admissions policy. The policy provides that the Law School makes "special efforts" to increase the number of such students because they "are particularly likely to have experiences and perspectives of special importance" and the enrollment of a "critical mass" of such preferred minority students ensures their ability to make "unique contributions to the character of the Law School.
The court also found that administrators at the Law School charged with the responsibility of assembling an entering class that matches its numerical target consult daily reports, which classify applicants by race and reflect the number of candidates who have applied, been accepted, been placed on the waiting list, and paid a deposit, for the entire applicant pool, and separately for various racial Grutter vs bollinger ethnic groups.
United States," U. Judge Boggs filed a dissent in which two judges joined. Such diversity is not a compelling interest, he concluded, because it is "poorly defined," has no "logical stopping point," will ultimately result in admissions being "parceled out roughly in proportion to representation in the general population," and "justif[ies] an infinite amount of engineering with respect to every racial, ethnic, and religious class.
Judge Gilman also dissented Pet. Nothing in the Constitution prevents public universities from achieving these laudable goals because there are a variety of race-neutral alternatives available to achieve the important goals of openness, educational diversity, and ensuring that all students of all races have meaningful access to institutions of higher learning.
For example, universities may adopt admissions policies that seek to promote experiential, geographical, political, or economic diversity; modify or discard facially neutral admissions criteria that tend to skew admissions results in a way that denies minorities meaningful access to public institutions; and open educational institutions to the best students from throughout the State or Nation.
These are race-neutral policies that have led to racially diverse student bodies. Texas, which has operated without race-based admissions policies since they were invalidated by the Fifth Circuit inprovides a useful example: By attacking the problems of openness and educational diversity directly and focusing on attracting the top graduating students from throughout the State, the Texas program has enhanced opportunity and promoted educational diversity by any measure.
Florida and California have adopted similar race-neutral policies with similar results. In light of these race-neutral alternatives, respondents cannot justify the express consideration of race in their admissions policy.
It may not employ race-based means without considering race-neutral alternatives and employing them if they would prove efficacious. Not only does the Equal Protection Clause require the government to consider and employ efficacious race-neutral alternatives, but it also demands that any use of race be otherwise carefully calibrated and narrowly tailored.
Efforts to use quotas to achieve predetermined levels of racial participation are the very antithesis of such narrow tailoring.
This Court has repeatedly condemned quotas as unconstitutional, and respondents cannot escape the reach of those cases by pursuing a purportedly flexible, slightly amorphous "critical mass" in lieu of the kind of rigid numerical quotas struck down by this Court in Bakke.
This Court has long recognized that the Equal Protection Clause outlaws quotas under any circumstances and forbids the government from employing race-based policies when race-neutral alternatives are available. Its central purpose is to guarantee "racial neutrality in governmental decisionmaking.
In light of the critical role of education, public institutions must make educational opportunity "available to all on equal terms," Plyer v. It is equally well established that the level of scrutiny does "not depend on the race of those burdened or benefitted," or whether the preference may be characterized as benign.
Rather, all racial classifications are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and are only constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. The Law School contends that its interest in enrolling a "diverse" student body is sufficiently compelling to justify its admitted use of racially discriminatory admissions standards.
Ensuring that public institutions are open and available to all segments of American society, including people of all races and ethnicities, represents a paramount government objective.
No segment of society should be denied an opportunity to obtain access to government services and public institutions.No.
In the Supreme Court of the United States. BARBARA GRUTTER, PETITIONER. v. LEE BOLLINGER, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. In the cases Grutter v.
Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (), the Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admission is . Gratz v. Bollinger, U.S. Like Grutter, the case was heard in District Court, appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and asked to be heard before the Supreme Court.
Issues of standing. It has been argued by some that Jennifer Gratz lacked legal standing to bring this action. Gratz applied in , three years before the.
In , the Supreme Court decided the landmark cases of Gratz iridis-photo-restoration.comger and Grutter iridis-photo-restoration.coml years after CIR’s historic victory in the Fifth Circuit, Hopwood iridis-photo-restoration.com, which struck down the use of racial preferences in all states in the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals upheld the use of the racial preferences program at the .
Grutter v. Bollinger, U.S. (), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law iridis-photo-restoration.come Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling.
United States Supreme Court UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, () No. Argued: October 12, Decided: June 28, The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of students - the regular admissions program and the special admissions program.