Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Evaluate the Court’s reasoning in upholding Grutter while striking down Gratz.
- Frederick Douglass, What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, 1865
- Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, 1868
- Opinion of Thurgood Marshall, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978
- University of Michigan Law School Brief, 2003
- Majority Opinion (5-4), Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
- Dissenting Opinion (William Rehnquist), Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
- Opinion of Antonin Scalia, Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
- Opinion of Clarence Thomas, Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
- Majority Opinion (6-3), Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003
- Dissenting Opinion (David Souter), Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003
- Dissenting Opinion (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003
- “U of M Case,” 2003
Read the Case Background and Key Question. Then analyze Documents A-L. Finally, answer the Key Question in a well-organized essay that incorporates your interpretations of Documents A-L, as well as your own knowledge of history.
In 1978, the Supreme Court handed down a fractured ruling on affirmative action in public universities. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the plurality decision found UC-Davis’s special admissions program to be a quota that was not consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Twenty-five years later, two affirmative action cases originating at the University of Michigan reached the Court. Both cases concerned Caucasian applicants who believed they had been unfairly denied admission because of the university’s admissions policies.
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court examined the university’s Law School program, which sought to admit a “critical mass” of minority students. The second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, concerned the admissions policy of the University’s Literature, Science and Arts School (LSA). This admissions program automatically awarded 20 points out of the 100 necessary for acceptance to members of minority groups. The legal reasoning for affirmative action in the two Michigan cases was partially different from the reasoning in Bakke. Affirmative action began as a way of compensating groups for unjust discrimination they had suffered. By 2003, the University of Michigan based its reasoning on promoting diversity.
In Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court had a chance to clarify its ruling in Bakke and determine the extent to which public universities could constitutionally consider race as a factor in admissions.
How has the Supreme Court ruled on the question of affirmative action? This Homework Help video asks students to explore the landmark case of Grutter v. Bollinger.
When is Affirmative Action Justified? Affirmative Action is a policy, usually carried out by schools, businesses, government entities, and federal contractors, in which individuals of minority racial status are afforded preferential treatment on the basis of race. Affirmative action came about as part of a desire to rectify the traditional underrepresentation of minority peoples in desirable professions and universities, which negatively impacted their financial and social conditions.
Affirmative Action and the Constitution
In 1997, the Texas legislature determined that the top ten percent of graduates from all of the state’s public high schools would automatically be admitted to Texas state universities. Sending the top ten percent of students from each school allowed for more diversity in higher education because individual high schools tend to be racially homogenous.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a case brought to the Supreme Court over the use of Affirmative Action in the college admission process. The University of California at Davis Medical School created a minimum minority student quote for the admissions department to fill each year. Bakke, a two-time UC-Davis Med School rejected applicant, sued the school for violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and title VI of the Civil Rights Acts. Ultimately, the Supreme Court justices ruled in support of the goals of Affirmative Action, but also stated that Bakke was, in fact, denied equal protection. This decision, because it was so muddled, did not set long-tern precedents or clarifications concerning Affirmative Action.