Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 982 (2003) is regarded as one of significant ruling in the United States Supreme Court that impacts on the lives of the people. In the Grutter case, someone filed a petition against the process of student admission at the University of Michigan’s Law School. As one of the most coveted Law Schools in the country, the University intended to admit students from diverse backgrounds and achieve high-level interaction and respect among students at the law school in the long run. The admission process least considered undergraduate performance and test scores. Instead, several subjective factors counted in selecting students for admission (Long, 2016). The admission process favoured the minority racial groups such as the African Americans, Native Americans, and the Latin Americans, among others. This would enable the law school to achieve its target of a diverse student population. This particular case touches on the application of affirmative action on school admissions and the constitutionalism of affirmative action. Application of affirmative action for school admissions is right and constitutional as long other race is regarded among other factors in achieving this (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 982 2003). This case explicitly touches on various social institutions and their connection to the law and offering proof that social institutions have to coexist with the law to succeed. Provision and access to education cannot exist without a mention of the legal system; the law guides the process of education, whereas education teaches on the legal systems. Civility is another social aspect covered by this case ruling. Several factors must meet the quest for diversity and the application of affirmative action. From the Supreme Court ruling, other factors other than race must be adequately applied to constitutionalize affirmative action. Denying individuals access to social amenities over their race is wrong and unconstitutional. The case of Grutter v. Bollinger can be traced back to 1997 when Barbara Grutter sought admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was white and had an undergraduate grade point average (GPA) of 3.8. In addition to that, Grutter scored 161 in the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). Nevertheless, the University denied her admission because it used race as crucial factor in making decisions on student admission. The University’s admission criteria issued points based on their race and thus gave higher opportunities to minority races. The student then filed a petition, seeking to challenge the law school’s criteria of admission of new students. The plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the decision by the University of Michigan’s Law School to deny her admission inspired her lawsuit against the University. Considering both her GPA and LSAT scores, she would have stood a better chance of securing admission at the University. Nevertheless, this was not the case because she was not from a minority racial group. From a distance, this looks like blatant discrimination because the race was a significant reason why Grutter was denied admission (Devins, 2003). The District Court decided that the University’s intention to achieving a diverse student population was not compelling enough to have race enjoined as a critical factor in making decisions in the admission process. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the above decision. It referred to the thoughts in Regents of the University of California vs Bakke, 438 U.S 265 (1978). In the case, it was decided by Justice Powell that diversity is a major factor in the interest of the government and that it was justified to include racial factor as a component of making admissions at the University. The Supreme Court also nailed on this decision and rejected that of the district court; race was justifiably included as an essential factor in achieving diversity in the law school’s admission process. The structure of the court is well represented in this case; the case moves from the District Court to two other higher courts where decisions are made in the same case. Before the Grutter case, affirmative action had been a critical issue under public debate for a long time. President Lyndon Johnson initiated affirmative action to increase opportunities for the minority groups, including African Americans, Latinos and the Native Americans, among others (Leonhardt, 2012). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides for the application of affirmative action, a law that has constantly used by the Federal government since its inception. Racial quotas were also used to promote affirmative action in the United States. Nevertheless, the period from the 1970s saw multiple court cases find their way to the courts challenging racial quotas. Most of these cases challenged affirmative action. Apart from the affirmative action laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids the act of discriminating an individual based on their skin colour, race or nationality of origin in access of social amenities such as education. The question on the constitutionality of affirmative action has appeared as a contentious issue in multiple court battles since the inception of the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, on some occasions, has laid key restrictions to affirmative action based on race, including removing the use of minority set-asides, among several actions. In a nutshell, the Grutter case has its background from several other cases, rulings and constitutional amendments. The plaintiff, Barbara Grutter, based her argument of the case in the Fourteenth Amendment. She presented to the court that the defendant, the University of Michigan’s Law School had included race as a significant factor in making decisions on admission. Moreover, this was an intentional way of discriminating against whites who were highly disfavored by the system. The Fourteenth AmendmentAmendment does not allow racial discrimination. The plaintiff’s argument was, therefore, valid and worth using in this case. Including the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was important on the side of the plaintiff. The provisions of the 14th AmendmentAmendment were the most persuasive arguments to possibly use at the time. On the other hand, the defendant, the University of Michigan’s Law School, defended themselves by maintaining that it did not use racial quotas in its admission process. Instead, they told the court that they worked towards achieving what they termed “critical mass” of the minority groups not well represented in the institutions. The two parties presented these arguments in the District Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Affirmative action had been a legal provision and used in many social institutions since initiation by President Lyndon Johnson. Affirmative action has won in many cases with similar contentious issues. Including it as an argument of defence was very resourceful for the law school. The District Court decided in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the institution's interest in achieving a diverse student population was not a necessary issue. In other words, the issue ought not to have been considered ahead of undergraduate score and LSAT. Race ought not to have been used in the university admission process. The case was taken to a higher court, the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision of the District Court and instead, regarded affirmative action as vital and constitutional. The Court of Appeal’s decision borrowed from a prior case, Regents of the University of California versus Bakke (1978). It is valid for courts to borrow various opinions of other courts over similar contentious issues. The Court of Appeal’s decision was therefore on point because judicial decisions can validly adopt opinions of other court cases (Danziger, Levav & Avnaim-Pesso, 2011). The plaintiff further appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which also invalidated the decision of the District Court. The Supreme Court decision affirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, the University of Michigan was right in including the “critical mass” in students’ admission. Sociology of law recommends that the judicial system should uphold morality and improve sociology in society. The Grutter case has affected various institutions of higher learning in multiple ways. While others have chosen to adhere to the Supreme Court decision and consider other factors in affirmative action, others still use race as a critical factor I making admission details at universities and colleges. Subsequently, this has impacted on student compositions and enrolling figures, among other things. According to Schmidt (2012), the Supreme Court Decision on the Grutter case led to a decrease in diversity in universities and colleges student populations. The Supreme Court decision approved affirmative action on the condition that it is pegged on race and other factors. Affirmative action means opportunities for minorities who majorly are minorities based on their race. Including other factors reduces the chances of the minority. Apart from that, Legal Education accrediting body, the Council of the American Bar Association (ABA) revised its requirements for accreditation of law schools. Policies for equal opportunities for all students and affirmative action are among key inclusions that the council of ABA added to their list of requirements from law schools and colleges offering law education in the United States.
References
Danziger, S., Levav, J., & Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889-6892.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Devins, N. (2003). Explaining Grutter v. Bollinger. U. Pa. L. Rev. , 152 , 347.
Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 982 (Supreme Court 2003).
Leonhardt, D. (2012, October 13). Rethinking Affirmative Action . Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/rethinking-affirmative-action.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=6F487E09C341C2D138D045D58A48F67D&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL
Long, M. (2016). The promise and peril for universities using correlates of race in admissions in response to the Grutter and Fisher decisions.
Schmidt, P. (2012). Graduate programs grow less diverse without racial preferences, research suggests. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
University of California Regents v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978).
