Grutter v. Bollinger

Facts

The University of Michigan Law School ranks among the Nation’s top law schools. It receives more than 3,500 applications each year for a class of around 350 students. In 1992 the faculty adopted an admissions policy that paired a focus on academic ability with a flexible assessment of each applicant’s talents, experiences and potential to contribute to the learning of those around them. Admissions officials had to read each file closely. They looked at the undergraduate grade point average (GPA), the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score, a personal statement, letters of recommendation and an essay on how the applicant would add to the school’s diversity. No score guaranteed admission, and no low score automatically barred it. The policy also reaffirmed a commitment to racial and ethnic diversity, with special reference to groups historically discriminated against. The school sought to enroll a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students. Witnesses said critical mass was not a set number or percentage. Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, applied in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a 161 LSAT score. The Law School put her on a waiting list and then rejected her. At trial, the admissions director said he checked daily reports on the racial makeup of the class but did not seek a particular number. A Law School expert predicted that without race, only 10 percent of underrepresented minority applicants, instead of 35 percent, would have been admitted in 2000.

Issues

1. Is student body diversity a compelling interest that can justify a public university’s narrowly tailored use of race in selecting applicants for admission?
2. Is the Law School’s use of race in admissions narrowly tailored to that interest, given its critical mass goal, its individualized review and its consideration of race-neutral alternatives?

Holding

The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions to further a compelling interest in the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Because the equal protection claim fails, the Title VI and §1981 claims fail too.