Grutter v. Bollinger

The Crutter Case

The plaintiff in Grutter was a White female who was denied admission to the University of Michigan's law school. She argued that the admissions policy discriminated against White applicants. At Michigan, applications were evaluated on the basis of factors that included a personal statement, letters of recommendation, the applicant's undergraduate grade point average, and a Law School Admission Test score. Students with the highest grades and test scores were not automatically admitted. A variety of factors were considered, including the race of minority applicants. This was done to promote racial, ethnic, and other forms of diversity so as to ensure that the entering class included students who were members of minority groups that historically had been the victims of discrimination.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all persons “equal protection of the laws.” Cases alleging violations of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may be analyzed under three separate standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. Laws or policies that classify on the basis of [Page 563]race are subjected to strict scrutiny, the most exacting of the three standards. Under this standard, classifications based on race must have a “compelling justification,” and the means that the government employs must be “narrowly tailored” to achieving the policy's goals. The 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke held that affirmative action was constitutional, but the Supreme Court justices did not agree then on the applicable analytical standard. It took 10 years and a dozen Court cases before a majority agreed that strict scrutiny applied to affirmative action programs.

The critical question in Grutter was whether diversity was a “compelling” justification. In an opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the majority held that “the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further [its] compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The majority found that classroom diversity “promotes cross-racial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.”

Strict scrutiny's second prong involves the “narrow tailoring” requirement. Previous affirmative action cases suggested several difficult-to-satisfy requirements. First, neutral selection criteria should be explored before resorting to a race-conscious approach. Second, if a university decides that a racial remedy is justified, it must be temporary and flexible. Third, there must be a relationship between any numerical goals for minority representation and the college-bound minority populations in the geographic regions from which students are drawn. Finally, consideration should be given to the impact of the program on nonminority students.

...