Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Gratz V. Bollinger: Procedural History/Facts

    Uploaded by

    Brigette Merzel
    The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which automatically awarded 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the program did not provide sufficient individualized consideration of applicants and was not narrowly tailored to achieving the compelling interest of diversity in education. While diversity may be a compelling interest, automatically awarding points based solely on race without individualized review does not satisfy the requirement of narrow tailoring.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gratz V. Bollinger: Procedural History/Facts

    Uploaded by

    Brigette Merzel
    50 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which automatically awarded 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the program did not provide sufficient individualized consideration of applicants and was not narrowly tailored to achieving the compelling interest of diversity in education. While diversity may be a compelling interest, automatically awarding points based solely on race without individualized review does not satisfy the requirement of narrow tailoring.

    Original Description:

    Case Brief

    Original Title

    Gratz v. Bollinger

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which automatically awarded 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the program did not provide sufficient individualized consideration of applicants and was not narrowly tailored to achieving the compelling interest of diversity in education. While diversity may be a compelling interest, automatically awarding points based solely on race without individualized review does not satisfy the requirement of narrow tailoring.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Gratz V. Bollinger: Procedural History/Facts

    Uploaded by

    Brigette Merzel
    The Supreme Court held that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program, which automatically awarded 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the program did not provide sufficient individualized consideration of applicants and was not narrowly tailored to achieving the compelling interest of diversity in education. While diversity may be a compelling interest, automatically awarding points based solely on race without individualized review does not satisfy the requirement of narrow tailoring.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    GRATZ V.

    BOLLINGER
    539 U.S. 244, 123 S. CT. 2411, 156 L. ED. 2D 257 (2003).

    Procedural History/Facts
     White applicants to University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, & Arts (LSA)
    sued school after applications were denied.
     π’s claimed that the affirmative action program discriminated against them on the basis of
    their race.
     College used selection method under which every applicant from an underrepresented
    racial/ethnic minority group (A-A, Hispanics, & Native Americans) was automatically
    awarded 20/100 points needed to guarantee admissions.

    Issue
    Whether ∆’s affirmative action program, which automatically gives underrepresented minorities
    points, is narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of educational diversity?

    Holding
    ∆’s admissions program fails to offer sufficient individualized consideration of candidates, and
    thus, its means are not narrowly tailored to its compelling interest in diversity. Violates EP.

    Reasoning (Rehnquist)
     Court relies on reasons in Grutter to acknowledge that while diversity may constitute a
    compelling interest capable of supporting narrowly-tailored means, ∆’s policy of distributing
    1/5 of points needed to guarantee admission to underrepresented minority applicant solely
    because of race is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity.
     In Bakke, court emphasized the importance of considering each particular applicant as an
    individual and evaluating that individual’s ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher
    education.
    o ∆’s policy of automatically distributing points x provide such individualized
    consideration.
     Even if student’s “extraordinary artistic talent” rivaled that of Monet or
    Picasso, the applicant would receive, at most, 240 five points under ∆’s
    system, but minority candidate would receive 20.
     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.
     Admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.

    Concurrence/Dissent

     Justice O’Connor’s Concurrence ––


    o ∆’s selection index, by setting up automatic, predetermined point allocations, ensures
    that diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed on a case-
    by-case basis.
    o Admissions plan contested in Grutter enables law school’s admissions officers to
    make nuanced judgments with respect to the contributions each applicant is likely to
    make to the diversity of the incoming class.
     Justice Thomas’s Concurrence ––
    o Court correctly applies our precedents; would hold that the EP categorically prohibits
    the State’s use of racial discrimination in higher education admissions.
     Justice Souter’s Dissent ––
    o Affirmative action program at issue in this case is closer to what Grutter approves
    than to the quota system that Bakke condemns & x be held unconstitutional on the
    current record.
    o It is hard to see what is inappropriate in assigning some stated value to a relevant
    characteristic, whether it is reasoning ability, writing style, or minority race; nor is it
    possible to say that the 20 points convert race into a decisive factor comparable to
    reserving minority places as in Bakke.
    o The point scheme at issue in this case is no more race conscious than the percentage
    scheme used by other institutions; it is simply more frank, and for that Michigan
    deserves a point of its own.
     Justice Ginsburg’s Dissent ––
    o The stain of racial oppression is still visible in our society & determination to hasten
    its removal remains vital.
    o In implementing the EP government decision makers may properly distinguish
    between policies of exclusion and inclusion. Where race is considered for the purpose
    of achieving equality, no automatic constitutional proscription is in order. Analysis:

    You might also like