On June 23, 2003, the first ruling in twenty-five years regarding affirmative action in higher education admission was issued by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices decided two separate, yet parallel cases regarding the University of Michigan Undergraduate and Law School Affirmative Action Admission policies. Both cases explored whether the University should be permitted to act more favorably toward ethnic/racial minorities to reverse past racial injustices and create a diversified student body.

In the first case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Grutter was a white female Law School applicant, who was rejected.¹ She investigated and discovered that members of racial and ethnic minorities, who had lower admission scores than she, were admitted to the Law School. Grutter sued, contended that she had been a victim of discrimination, and argued that the Law School Admission Program was unconstitutional. Grutter rooted her arguments in the 1978 decision of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the Court ruled that the school was permitted to take the factors of race and ethnicity into account, could not use a quota system, and held that the school must narrowly tailor its policies to harm as few people as possible.²

Grutter was successful at the Trial Court level in the U.S. District Court; but lost in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which exercises jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. At the Appellate level, a majority of the Justices adopted the University's view that a diverse student body has many educational benefits and held that exercising a point system for admission, which accounts for the race of the applicant, is not the equivalent of exercising a quota system and is not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Subsequently, Grutter appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Sandra Day O'Conner cast the deciding vote and stated:

This statement suggests that affirmative action, in Justice O'Connor's eyes, is still necessary; but, will not be needed, once an appropriate equilibrium is reached.

Interestingly, the parallel case of Gratz v. Bollinger, struck down the University's Undergraduate School Admission Policy, which automatically distributed twenty points (one-fifth of the points necessary to guarantee admission) to every under-represented minority applicant solely because of race. The Court found that this point distribution system violated the Equal Protection Clause and was not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the school’s interest of educational diversity.³

These parallel decisions will require an eventual balance between educational diversity and equal protection. The two equally profound holdings provide guidance, yet, undoubtedly, leave questions as to whether point distribution based on minority or ethnicity status is just or unjust, fair or unfair, necessary or unnecessary? And for how long?

Just or unjust, fair or unfair, the United States Supreme Court rulings have taken affect and the University of Michigan, along with other universities, will be compelled to tailor their admission guidelines, policies, and practices to adhere to the Court’s July 23, 2003 rulings. While some groups have tag-lined the decision to include race or ethnicity as an admission factor as the "death of equal protection", still others view this system as necessary to achieve a culturally diverse campus population and prevent feelings of isolation or seclusion among individuals who belong to racial or ethnic minority groups.

Regardless of which perspective any one person or group holds, it remains true that in the United States of America we are all entitled to our own dreams, as well as the education to pursue them.

For more information regarding Constitutional legal issues, such as Educational or Professional Discrimination and the rights enveloped by the cloak of Equal Protection, please contact David M. Huntley at dmh@jgcg.com.

---