Grutter v. Bollinger
..., as opposed to 14.5%, of the student body would be composed of underrepresented minorities. Evidence entered by Petitioner Grutter: Regents of University of California v. Bakke The Bakke case examined the University of California Medical School’s admissions program, which reserved 16 out of 100 seats for members of minority groups. Justice Powell delivered the decision of the court. Diversity was defined as a compelling state interest based on First Amendment’s concern for academic freedom. “‘The nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation.” Nonetheless, Powell determined that diversity is not limited to race, rather, it encompasses a variety of characteristics. Thus, a percentage or quota system putting racial groups on separate admissions tracks can not survive part two of the strict scrutiny test, as narrowly tailored to further the interest as stake. In order to fulfill this aspect of strict scrutiny race can only be considered as a “plus” factor; “flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight”. The Justices: Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court with Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer concurring; forming the majority decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy filed dissenting opinions. Justices Scalia and Thomas both filed and opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice O’Connor, courts opinion: Justice O’Connor’s primary argument is a doctrinal argument based upon the precedent court decision of University of California v. Bakke. Using this precedent, in addition to other findings, O’Connor concludes that the Law School’s actions do endure the strict scrutiny test making them lawful. First the Justice establishes that diversity is a compelling state interest as determined in the Bakke decision. Based upon statements made by the university officials, regarding the importance of diversity to the quality of education, O’Connor concludes that diversity is at the “heart of the Law School’s proper institutional mission”. He also points out that Justice Powell established that universities have the autonomy to make its own educational judgments, including its student body selection. This claim is constitutionally grounded by the First Amendment. Quoting major business leaders and military officials Justice O’Connor also uses “expert findings” to argue the value of diversity and the importance of educational institutions as training grounds for future leaders. Law students, especially those of more prestigious schools, become important governmental figures. Our nation’s leaders must have had “exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints”. Second, O’Connor establishes that the Law school’s use of race is narrowly tailored to further diversity. Again, using a doctrinal argument he asserts that the admissions process directly follows the criterion set by the Bakke case. The Bakke rejects the use of racial quotas, as it does not further all forms of diversity. However the case does allow admissions officials to use race as a “plus factor” which is taken in consideration along with a variety of other qualities. Michigan Law School does not fill quotas, which is obvious by its fluctuating minority acceptance from year to year. Rather, minority applicants are given points for belonging to an ethnic minority. The school strives to achieve a critical mass of minority students, but there are no designated numbers to explicitly define critical mass. This critical mass ensures that other minority students feel comfortable in their learning environment and do not feel like spokespeople for their race. It also provides for a variety of viewpoints which will enrich each students education and help combat racial stereotyping by demonstrating that each individual, not each racial group, has a different viewpoint. Justice Powell uses Harvard’s admissions program as a model for the proper use of race to achieve diversity without infringing on equal protection. O’Connor points out that the Law Schools admissions program is virtually identical to the program used by Harvard. Passing strict scrutiny, Justice O’Connor concludes that the University of Michigan’s race-conscious admissions program does not violate the constitution. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, concurring: Both Justices argue that the admissions process is lawful based upon a different set of grounds. They point out that the U.S. ratified International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination endorses affirmative action plans that authorize “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality that shall be discontinued when the objectives of equality of opportunity and treatment have been achieved”. It is a logical reality that minorities do not have equal educational opportunities. From an ethical standpoint the Justices see it necessary for admissions programs to use affirmative action based admissions programs until there is no need for such measures. Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissenting: CJ Rehnquist argues that the Law School’s means are not narrowly tailored in the interest of diversity. He points out: there are far fewer Hispanic and Native American applicants than those of African American dissent accepted, many non-minority applicants with lower scores are admitted, and that there is a striking correlation between the percentage of the pool of minority applicants and the percentage of minorities admitted. These facts point to the conclusion that the “critical mass” is achieved using the statistical representations of the applicant pool, which is a form of racial balancing. Such racial balancing is declared unconstitutional in the Equal Protection Clause. CJ Rehnquist also feels that if the program were narrowly drawn there would be some set time limit for the race-conscious program, which he feels is an important aspect of strict scrutiny. Finally, he points out that the use of race in this manner is not granted by the Constitution Justice Kennedy, dissenting: Justice Kennedy agrees with CJ Rehnquist that the concept of a “critical mass” is masks a numerical goal, which the Law School uses to achieve racial balancing, thus it is unconstitutional. The daily reports are further evidence that the school uses percentages in the last stages of the admissions process to monitor minority enrollment. He points out that this compromises individual review and that the Law School has not taken adequate steps to ensure that each applicant receives individual assessment. Kennedy introduces a counter-majoritarian argument, frowning upon the majority’s abandonment of strict scrutiny. Justice Thomas, both concurring and dissenting: Justice Scalia, both concurring and dissenting: My assessment: I think each position was supported with the correct “should” arguments. The concurring opinions relied heavily upon doctrinal arguments, referring to prior cases, namely the Bakke case. The dissention opinions relied upon textual arguments, pointing out that the constitution itself does not protect diversity as a compelling state interest. I do feel that a prudent argument could have been used to support that concurring opinions. Admittedly, there are certain flaws to the admission process, which may or may not inhibit individual assessment; however, there are really no adequate alternatives that can ensure a race-conscious acceptance, securing the compelling interest at stake. Thus, this is, temporarily, the only prudent choice. PART II Analysis: The Court upheld the Law Schools admissions procedures. The Court was counter-majoritarian in some aspects and majoritarian in others. For example, the Court clearly acted in support of the racial minority, allowing them the continued benefits of this racially-conscious program. The Court also over turned the District Courts decision, which can be viewed as a counter-majoritarian action. However; with regards to the nine Justices, there was a clear majority, which determined the outcome of the case. This case has rekindles the affirmative action debate as the political, social, and economic stakes are high. A large number of corporations support the decisions of the court while the Bush administration is in strong opposition. Bush referred to the Law School’s program as “divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution”. CNN states that, “while this case is about access to education, the Supreme Court's ruling could have rippling effects on affirmative action programs in job hiring and government contracts”. Dissenting to the Courts opinions are a large number of conservative groups; meanwhile, much of corporate America, civil rights activists, and a coalition of military leaders are in accord with the efforts to adopt a diverse student body using this type of program. Polling Data: A 2001 poll conducted by the Washington post has shows that the majority of Americans opposed the use of racial preferences. The random sample of 1,709 adults was conducted by telephone from March 8 thru April 22, 2001. Each person was asked, “In order to give minoriti...