Affirmative Action Upheld in Michigan Case

The case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is one of two high-profile cases involving the University of Michigan’s policies on affirmative action. The other case, Gratz v. Bollinger, involves undergraduate admissions. Although the two cases were argued together before the appeals court, the court announced that it will rule on Gratz later.

Both lawsuits were filed in 1997 on behalf of white applicants who were denied admission to the university, and both had been heard previously in the same lower court, where two different judges came to opposing conclusions. In Grutter, a lower court judge ruled in 2001 that the law school’s aim of assembling a racially diverse student population was not a "compelling state interest," that "an admissions policy that treats any applicants differently from others on account of their race is unfair and unconstitutional," and that the university’s use of race as a factor in admissions decisions amounted to an unconstitutional quota system. In Gratz, a lower court judge ruled in 2000 that the university’s undergraduate admissions policies, which awarded extra points to minority applicants, were legal, and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke established a compelling government interest in campus diversity.

The appeals court decision was a close one, with the judges split 5 to 4. The majority’s opinion said that "because Bakke remains the law until the Supreme Court instructs otherwise, we . . . find that the Law School has a compelling interest in achieving a diverse student body." The majority also found that the law school’s plan was constitutional because it does not impose a quota system on minority admissions but uses race as one of several "plus" factors that may increase applicants’ chances of admissions. The university’s goal, said the court, is not to achieve a specific number of minority enrollees but to "attend to the number of underrepresented minority students to ensure that all students—minority and majority alike—will be able to enjoy the educational benefits of an academically diverse student body." But a dissenting opinion supported by three judges stated that "this case involves a straightforward instance of racial discrimination by a state institution." (A fourth dissenting judge wrote a separate opinion.)

The split reflects a division of opinion among courts generally on the issue of affirmative action. Federal appeals courts have struck down affirmative action policies in Texas and Georgia, but upheld a similar policy in Washington state. Most observers believe that the issue must eventually be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The current decision is welcome news to supporters of affirmative action, including the AAUP, which, along with many other higher education organizations, has filed friend-of-the-court briefs focusing on the educational benefits of racial diversity. "Most important," says AAUP associate counsel Ann Springer, "the court recognized the significance of diversity in the educational process and the importance of leaving decisions about how to educate, and whom to educate, to educators."

 Printer-Friendly Page