Reply #168: Gratz vs. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003)

[Brewman_Jax]

Grutter vs. Bollinger is the U. of Michigan Law School admissions case, and Gratz vs. Bollinger is the undergraduate point system admissions case. Lee Bollinger was the President of the University of Michigan at the time and the lead defendant in both cases. Two white women were at the center of the University of Michigan cases. Jennifer Gratz was a top high school student in suburban Detroit in 1995, when Michigan rejected her application. Barbara Grutter, a 49-year-old mother of two, ran her own consulting business. Michigan's prestigious law school rejected her application in 1997. She investigated and found out that African Americans and ethnic minorities who had lower overall admissions scores were admitted. Grutter sued, saying she was a victim of illegal discrimination.

The university acknowledges it has used race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups have received extra points, as do children of alumni, athletes and men enrolling in nursing programs. Gratz's lawyers called the points granted for race a "super bonus," equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.

Grutter's lawyers argued that the admissions program at the university's law school was unconstitutional. They based the argument on a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the court ruled that a school could take race and ethnicity into account -- but couldn't use quotas. Instead, admissions programs must be "narrowly tailored" to harm as few people as possible.

Grutter and her supporters won the first round in U.S. District Court, but lost in a close decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The majority of appellate court justices sided with the university view that a diverse student body has its own benefits, and that a "points" system for admission that takes the race of the applicant into account in an overall score wasn't a quota. Grutter appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote in Grutter, saying that affirmative action is still needed in America -- but hoped that its days are numbered. "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

In the undergraduate case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the 6-3 majority ruled the points system violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of race was not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the university's diversity goals.


Writer's Note: Notice that not much angers the members of the upper caste, i.e., white people, esp. those with resources, more than their desires are not fulfilled, than not having their desires fulfilled, and a minority person gets what they wanted. Now for a few facts: the major state universities are overwhelmingly white, with black undergraduate enrollment averaging in the range of 5-8%. For the University of Michigan, the freshman class of 5,000 in 2003 was 82% white, 18% non-white. Notice that both plaintiffs did not argue that white students with lower test scores, or extra admissions points, were admitted instead of them. Based on the percentages, a white student was more likely than a black student to be admitted. The 2000 census has the population percentage of Michigan at 80.2% white, 19.8% non-white. According to the admissions point system (http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.h... ), an underrepresented minority got 20 points. Overrepresented white people get added points, too, but those points aren't stated that way. A resident of Michigan got 10 points, a resident of an underrepresented Michigan county got 6 points, a legacy got 4 points--all more than likely white. There are the sections with point ranges, SAT/ACT scores, School Factor and Curriculum Factor. One gets more points for higher SAT/ACT scores, School Factor, and Curriculum Factor--again skewed in favor of majority-white schools that tend to have higher performing schools, better curriculum, and better SAT/ACT preparation. The hypocritical basis of both cases highlights the racial caste system and the sense of entitlement that is often held by members of the upper caste.



http://www.npr.org/news/specials/michigan/index.html
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.h...
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10228
http://www.census.gov /
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/23/scotus.affirmative.ac...