In a 5-4 decision in Grutter, the Supreme Court 6/23/03 upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy that allowed race to be considered as one of many factors in an individualized admissions process. Endorsing Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Court first held that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.” Distinguishing this case from its companion, Gratz, the Court then held that the law school’s program, which centered on using race as a “plus” factor in an individualized process to achieve a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities was constitutional because it “bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan.” Finally, the Court noted that because “the number of minority applicants with high grades and test scores has indeed increased” in the 25 years since “Justice Powell first approved the use of race to further an interest in student body diversity in the context of public higher education,” it “expect[ed] that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further” that interest.In Gratz, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in its undergraduate admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court first noted that, as set forth in Grutter, the use of race in admissions can be a compelling interest capable of supporting narrowly-tailored means. However, the Court held that “the University’s policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single ‘underrepresented minority’ applicant solely because of race,” is not narrowly tailored to achieve the University’s asserted compelling interest in diversity. Responding to the University’s contention that more individualized consideration is “impractical” for such a large institution, the Court stated that “the fact that the implementation of a program capable of providing individualized consideration might present administrative challenges does not render constitutional an otherwise problematic system.”
These cases are significant to all institutions of higher education. They are also important to employers and government contractors whose personnel and other decisions are subject to equal protection and similar civil rights requirements. A group of large employers supported the school's affirmative action program because it encouraged diversity in the student body, which makes a more diverse pool of potential workers from which to choose. See also case #02-516 Gratz v. Bollinger