Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Gratz v. Bollinger
Gratz v. Bollinger is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the university's point system was too mechanistic and therefore unconstitutional.[1]
Background
The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave bonus points to applicants from one of three select racial minority groups (African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) that were considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus. The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of 1997. Both were subsequently denied admission to the university. [2][3]
In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan, the LSA, James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger. Duderstadt was president of the university while Gratz's application was under consideration, and Bollinger while Hamacher's was under consideration. Their class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Amendment XIV, United States Constitution ... and for racial discrimination." The court found in favor of the plaintiffs that the system was unconstitutional, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.[2][4]
Decision
In a 6-3 decision on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the university's admission system was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The majority declared that the system of automatic distribution of points to every underrepresented minority applicant did not fit the individualized consideration requirement established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, nor was it a narrowly tailored consideration of race. The majority also rejected the argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest. The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer.[1][3][5]
Rehnquist wrote the following in the majority opinion:[5]
| “ | Moreover, unlike Justice Powell’s example, where the race of a “particular black applicant” could be considered without being decisive, see Bakke, 438 U.S., at 317, the LSA’s automatic distribution of 20 points has the effect of making “the factor of race … decisive” for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant.[6] | ” |
| —Chief Justice William Rehnquist | ||
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg submitted dissents. Ginsburg wrote the following in her dissent:[7]
| “ | The stain of generations of racial oppression is still visible in our society, see Krieger, 86 Calif. L. Rev., at 1253, and the determination to hasten its removal remains vital. One can reasonably anticipate, therefore, that colleges and universities will seek to maintain their minority enrollment–and the networks and opportunities thereby opened to minority graduates–whether or not they can do so in full candor through adoption of affirmative action plans of the kind here at issue.[6] | ” |
| —Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | ||
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez.org, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed July 15, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 CaseBriefs.com, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed July 15, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 PBS, "Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)," accessed July 15, 2015
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedPBS - ↑ 5.0 5.1 law.cornell.edu, "GRATZ V. BOLLINGER (02-516) 539 U.S. 244 (2003)," accessed July 15, 2015
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ law.cornell.edu, "GRATZ V. BOLLINGER (02-516) 539 U.S. 244 (2003)," accessed July 15, 2015
