Grutter v. Bollinger: Arguments
Argument #1
The Court should rule in favor of Jennifer Grutter. Because race is a factor in this case, any remedies must pass the strict scrutiny test. The admissions procedure of the Law School must be narrowly tailored in supporting a compelling government interest of diveristy. The Law School's program does not pass this test. The critical mass argument of the Law School is a sham since the School offers no reason for the disparities among the numbers of admitted students within each group. Rather than striving for a critical mass of students from a specific racial group, the statistics show that the admissions decisions were based on the number of applicants of that specific group. This is therefore the equivalent to a quota system which is unconstitutional.
Argument #2
In Bakke the Supreme Court ruled that race-based affirmative action programs were constitutional if they were intended to promote diversity and there were no quotas or set-asides. The University of Michigan's Law School admissions fits all the criteria for a permissible program. Race is considered as a plus factor (not as a deciding factor) in the context of individualized consideration of each applicant. The admissions process uses race as only one element in a range of factors. Therefore the Law School's admissions procedure which seeks to create a critical mass of under-represented minority students is constitutional.
Back