Supreme Court Ruling of the University of Michigan's Admission Policies.

In the case Gratz et al v. Bollinger et al, the petitioners Gratz and Hamacher, both of whom are Michigan residents and Caucasian, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's (University) College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively. Although the LSA considered Gratz to be well qualified and Hamacher to be within the qualified range, both were denied early admission and were ultimately denied admission. In order to promote consistency in the review of the many applications received, the University's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) uses written guidelines for each academic year. The guidelines have changed a number of times during the period relevant to this litigation. The OUA considers a number of factors in making admissions decisions, including high school grades, standardized test scores, high school quality, curriculum strength, geography, alumni relationships, leadership, and race. During all relevant periods, the University has considered African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans to be "underrepresented minorities," and it is undisputed that the University admits virtually every qualified applicant from these groups. The current guidelines use a selection method under which every applicant from an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group is automatically awarded 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission.

          Petitioners filed this class action alleging that the University's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought compensatory and punitive damages for past violations, declaratory relief finding that respondents violated their rights to nondiscriminatory treatment, an injunction prohibiting respondents from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race, and an order requiring the LSA to offer Hamacher admission as a transfer student. The District Court granted petitioners' motion to certify a class consisting of individuals who applied for and were denied admission to the LSA for academic year 1995 and forward and who are members of racial or ethnic groups that respondents treated less favorably on the basis of race. Hamacher, whose claim was found to challenge racial discrimination on a class wide basis, was designated as the class representative. On cross-motions for summary judgment, respondents relied on Justice Powell's principal opinion in Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, which expressed the view that the consideration of race as a factor in admissions might in some cases serve a compelling government interest. Respondents contended that the LSA has just such an interest in the educational benefits that result from having a racially and ethnically diverse student body and that its program is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The court agreed with respondents as to the LSA's current admissions guidelines and granted them summary judgment in that respect. However, the court also found that the LSA's admissions guidelines for 1995 through 1998 operated as the functional equivalent of a quota running afoul of Justice Powell's Bakke opinion, and thus granted petitioners summary judgment with respect to respondents' admissions programs for those years. While interlocutory appeals were pending in the Sixth Circuit, that court issued an opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding the admissions program used by the University's Law School. This Court granted certiorari in both cases, even though the Sixth Circuit had not yet rendered judgment in this one.

The court held that because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted interest in diversity, the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court has today rejected petitioners' argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest. However, the Court finds that the University's current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race, are not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity. The Court rejects respondents' contention that the volume of applications and the presentation of applicant information make it impractical for the LSA to use the admissions system upheld today in Grutter. The fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system. Nothing in Justice Powell's Bakke opinion signaled that a university may employ whatever means it desires to achieve diversity without regard to the limits imposed by strict scrutiny. Because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, it also violates Title VI and §1981. Accordingly, the Court reverses that portion of the District Court's decision granting respondents summary judgment with respect to liability.

So in summary, in Grutter v. Bollinger et al. that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education, and that race is one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The Court found that the individualized, whole-file review used in the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. The Court also held that the Law School’s goal of attaining a critical mass of underrepresented minority students does not transform its program into a quota. In Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al., the Court held that while race is one of a number of factors that can be considered in undergraduate admissions, the automatic distribution of twenty (20) points to students from underrepresented minority groups is not narrowly tailored. 

Many people agreed and disagreed with the outcome of the case. Many felt that it was a victory for affirmative action. They felt that without admissions policies that take race and ethnicity into account, university student bodies across the country would lack the diversity we see today. And diversity is an important part of higher education institutions' mission. They feel that “the real question is whether we can find ways to ensure appropriate levels of minority enrollment in colleges and universities without making race a factor in admissions decisions.” Maybe someday, but not yet. But the reality, they feel, is that we live in a racist we live in society where people are consistently included and excluded because of their race or ethnicity. The only way to ensure that minorities have an equal opportunity to be recruited by and admitted to some colleges and universities is to require institutions to consider race in enrollment decisions - not as the only factor, not as the determining factor, but as one factor among others.

Ignorance is the fuel that drives racism, and discrimination is the catalyst
for race-conscious admissions policies. Discrimination can best be eliminated through education. And they feel that colleges and universities are the best places to challenge stereotypes, face fears and eliminate ignorance. In the classroom environment, students can see that people are individuals. They can see that stereotypes are unrealistic generalizations that do not apply to every person in a particular racial or ethnic group. If enough people from various backgrounds are exposed to this type of educational setting, over time the need for affirmative action will dwindle and disappear. But they say we are not yet at that point. Although America has come far in bridging the racial divide and higher education institutions are much more diverse today than they were when the Supreme Court last ruled on affirmative action in 1978, they believe we still have far to go. Institutions of higher education must be vigilant in their pursuit of excellence: academic excellence, excellence in research, and - equally important- excellence in recruiting and admitting the best and brightest from every racial group.

Others felt that the ruling was not a victory for society at all. One student observed after the ruling, that news outlets showed pictures of students who were hugging and smiling, clearly celebrating with approval of the ruling.  He states that, “this reaction is puzzling when you consider that in part the court ruled very harshly against the University of Michigan, forbidding its current point system that favors minorities. This was a not a minor event.  The University of Michigan was found to have adopted an illegal admissions model that proudly uses race as a bonus for incoming undergraduates. The Court's judgment forces the University to abandon this discriminatory practice.” He felt that, “to call the Court's decision a “victory” is a bit of an overstatement.  It seems to him it is a net gain of zero since not much will change except for the University's current illegal undergraduate admission practices.  Universities across the country are already geared towards campus-racial engineering.  The Court’s decision, however, sends a strong shot across their bows, instructing them to be careful when conducting their engineering process. As if the trials of his presidency had not been enough, President Bush courageously sponsored this legal action on sheer principle, arguing that the admission practices at the University of Michigan are fundamentally wrong and un-American.  The Supreme Court of the United States clearly agrees, if only in part. But ironically, diversity is not just the solution for our societal problems - it is simultaneously a problem in and of itself, the biggest problem we have (aside of government funding).  That is, apparently America is in the midst of a diversity crisis that is eating away at our core educational values and systems. To Liberals, we have a major diversity problem.  Bigotry, hate, institutional racism, glass ceilings are all running rampant.  Intervention is needed before it reaches some sort of critical mass! Liberal policies are needed to hold the rising tide at bay! Of course, the liberal solution to this crisis is to sprinkle on a little more "magic dust", that is, even more diversity!  Yes, that’s right, the American diversity crisis will be solved through policies that refine and shape the supply of student diversity on campuses. But this creates are rather paradoxical conundrum for liberals.  That is, the more they force and mandate diversity, particularly through racist policies, the more they promote differences among people.  Apparently people are to be categorized and placed in an appropriate grouping. A melting pot we are no longer. I was disappointed the Supreme Court concluded that diversity is some sort of goal or achievement ("a compelling state of interest").  Apparently, they have bought into the policy-magic-dust theory.  They agree in principle with the social engineering that campuses seem to be bathing in. I guess I should be grateful the Court recognizes diversity is not so important we should ignore its residual byproducts, such as, oh say, institutionalized racism.

As you can see, this issue can be seen from many different angles. In my opinion, I feel that the rulings were a success for our society as a whole. I am glad that the justices realized that our society is not yet equal; that everyone is not born with equal opportunity. They realized that without affirmative action admission policies, the percentage of minorities in higher education institutions would decrease dramatically. But the justices also realized the difference between affirmative action and discrimination. They realized that to give someone an automatic extra 20 points just for being a minority is wrong. Yes, it should be considered as a factor, but to put that much weight on someone’s race is wrong whether it is to help him or her or harm him or her. After all it is not anyone’s fault that they are or are not any certain ethnic group. So I believe that a person should first be judged by their accomplishments (i.e. grades, test scores, essays, etc.) then their race should be considered. So I agree with the courts ruling that affirmative action admission policies are constitutional and I agree that the University of Michigan needs to change their point system for admission.

Works Cited

“Summary of Supreme Court Decisions in Admissions Cases.” Retrieved November 23, 2003 from the World Wide Web:

“Affirmative Action Is Still Necessary Tool.” Retrieved November 23, 2003 from the World Wide Web: .

“Michigan’s Diversity “Problem.” Retrieved November 24, 2003 from the World Wide Web:

“GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER.” Retrieved November 24, 2003 from the World Wide Web:  

“GRATZ v. BOLLINGER.” Retrieved November 24, 2003 from the World Wide Web:  

---