NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED478279
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2003-Jul
Pages: 31
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
Reaffirming Diversity: A Legal Analysis of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases. A Joint Statement of Constitutional Law Scholars.
Harvard Civil Rights Project, Cambridge, MA.
On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies designed to promote diversity in higher education. The Grutter versus Bollinger decision upheld the University of Michigan Law School race-conscious admissions policy as constitutional. However, in Gratz versus Bollinger, it held that the University's current undergraduate admissions policy was not narrowly tailored to advance an interest in diversity because it was not sufficiently flexible and did not provide enough individualized consideration of applicants to the University. This paper analyzes the University of Michigan cases and discusses their impact on higher education policymaking and on the constitutional assessment of affirmative action programs. Part one examines the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions in the Grutter and Gratz cases and discusses the constitutional boundaries for race-conscious admissions policies established by the Court. Part two examines the appropriate use of race in higher education admissions policies, as well as race-conscious financial aid, recruitment, and support programs. Part three examines the potential impact of the decisions on areas outside of higher education, including K-12 education and employment. (SM)
The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, 125 Mt. Auburn Street, 3rd Floor, Cambridge, MA. Tel: 617-496-6367; Fax: 617-495-5210; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Harvard Civil Rights Project, Cambridge, MA.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Bakke v Regents of University of California; Gratz et al v Bollinger et al; Grutter et al v Bollinger et al