Question

Analyse the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Gratz and Grutter cases. Why does the court allow race to be used in one case anc not the other? how is the court using Scrutiny?

Answer 1

Gratz v. Bollinger challenged the undergraduate admissions system at UM’s College of Literature, the Arts and Sciences (“LSA”); Grutter v. Bollinger challenged the UM Law School admissions system. The two cases were filed inside a month of every different and therefore the Supreme Court detected each cases at the same time after they reached the judicature. Both cases raised two questions: first, whether it is ever appropriate to take the race of an applicant into account in order to achieve a desirable racial mix of students, and second, if so, whether or not either of the admissions systems at the UM took race under consideration in associate degree acceptable method. The Court smitten down the undergrad system in Gratz however upheld the graduate school admissions system in question in Grutter. It decided that a school may take race into account to achieve educational benefits of diversity, but it may not use race in a mechanical fashion solely to achieve a racial balance for its own sake. The Court smitten down the UM undergrad admissions system in Gratz as a result of it automatically awarded all minority candidates an identical bonus. The Court upheld the UM graduate school system as a result of it seemingly granted racial preferences on a case by case basis. In truth, the graduate school system granted preferences as as massive and mechanical because the undergrad system. So much is still open for clarification in later opinions. Click here for a additional complete analysis of the Court’s ruling by CIR General Counsel Michael Rosman. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the us Constitution prohibits government entities – together with public universities – from discriminating supported race, except where the discrimination is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The standard beneath Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act – that applies to personal likewise as public universities – is analogous.

The UM and different faculties don't deny that they discriminate against white, Asian, and Arab applicants. But, they say, they need to do thus to any what they claim could be a compelling interest in having a various student body. CIR doesn't believe the “diversity rationale” meets the constitutional commonplace of a compelling state interest that justifies associate degree exception to the plain language of the Equal Protection clause.