ERIC Number: ED478414
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2003-Jun-23
Reference Count: N/A
The Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus: Grutter v. Bollinger et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Argued April 1, 2003-Decided June 23, 2003. October Term, 2002. (Slip Opinion.)
United States Supreme Court, Washington, DC.
This legal document presents the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the affirmative action case brought against the University of Michigan's Law School. On June 23, 2003, the Court held in Grutter v. Bollinger et al. that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education and that race is one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The Court found that the educational benefits of diversity are real and had been substantiated by the university and its amici in supporting briefs. It also found that the individualized, whole-file review used in the University of Michigan Law School's admissions process is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. The Court held that the Law School's goal of attaining a critical mass of underrepresented minority students does not transform its program into a quota and that its flexible admissions policy does not unduly harm members of any racial group, because all applicants have the opportunity to demonstrate how they would contribute to the diversity of the entering class. The Court also held that race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time and that universities should consider sunset provisions and periodic reviews for such programs. It concluded with an expectation that, 25 years from now, such programs will no longer be necessary. (SM)
Publication Type: Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: United States Supreme Court, Washington, DC.
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Bakke v Regents of University of California; Fourteenth Amendment; Grutter et al v Bollinger et al