... Subject of law: Equal Protection.

This week the Law Library tasked law student Andy Kiyuna with summarizing a dissent by Justice Ginsburg. (§268) The Court dismissed this claim by making reference to a previous case, Grutter v. Bollinger, where it held that racial diversity can constitute a compelling interest.

Home » » Case Briefs » Constitutional Law » Gratz v. Bollinger.

Facts. At a point of reference, the school provided 12 points for a perfect SAT score.

(§269), The Court found that the University’s policy, which automatically distributed one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, was not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity that the university claimed justified its program. Minority Rights Group International
Citation539 U.S. 244.

Under the admission policy during 1995 to 1998, the University admitted nearly every qualified “underrepresented minority” applicant. Minority Rights Group International (MRG) Deputy Director, Claire Thomas, writes this opinion piece for the Thomson Reuters News Foundation. of Cal. Whether a policy of allocating high point values on a scale for race alone violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. Bollinger, post, at 327-333, the Court has today rejected petitioners' argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest. 2d 304 (2003), Your email address will not be published. Gratz v. Bollinger.

Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission.

Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. However, the Court finds that the University's current 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 …

Professor Krieger’s article titled, Civil Rights Perestroika: Intergroup Relations After Affirmative Action is found at 86 Cal. Summary.

The court wrote that the policy was not “narrowly tailored” enough to justify its constitutionality. Facts. Gratz v. Bollinger. Under the new system, all students who scored over 100 under the admission policy were automatically admitted. 02-516 Argued: April 1, 2003 Decided: June 23, 2003. Argued April 1, 2003–Decided June 23, 2003. Question: What is the difference between the Gratz case and the Grutter case? Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher applied for admission to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively. GRATZ et al. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Despite this worrying global situation, we reaffirm our commitment to safeguarding the rights of minority and indigenous communities and implementing indivisible human rights for all. What differentiated Gratz and Hamacher from the rest of the students denied admission to LSA was the lawyers they hired and the certified class action against the University. United States Supreme Court. The University of Michigan developed an admission scale for applicants that provided a maximum of 150 points, with 100 points being all that’s needed for guaranteed admission. Synopsis of Rule of Law.

(§270) Petitioners in this case argued that the Court has only sanctioned the use of racial classifications to remedy identified discrimination, a justification on which respondents have never relied. Posted on November 6, 2012 | Constitutional Law | Tags: Constitutional Law Case Brief. L. Rev. [1] Linda Hamilton Krieger, Civil Rights Perestroika: Intergroup Relations After Affirmative Action, 86 Cal.

Both applicants were Caucasian residents of Michigan, both were told that final decisions on their applications were to be delayed, and both applicants were eventually denied.

v. BOLLINGER et al. (§271-72) It held that the LSA’s automatic distribution of 20 points had the effect of making the factor of race decisive for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant. Case summary for Gratz v. Bollinger: Two Caucasians challenged the University of Michigan’s admissions policy after being denied entry into the undergraduate program, claiming the procedure violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

In this scale, they provided 20 points for racial minorities.

The source of the complaint was the university’s undergraduate admissions policy, which was based on a point system that automatically granted 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups. No. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan, the LSA, 2 James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger. Ginsberg points out that race is not simply an impermissible classification, but that our Constitution is both “color blind” and “color conscious” on the subject.

1251.

Citation539 U.S. 244.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that since the admission policy does not seek to limit or decrease enrollment by any particular racial or ethnic group, and no seats are reserved on the basis of race, that the University did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. v. University of Hawaiʻi School of Law Library. Learn how your comment data is processed. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against respondents, a university, a college, and university officials, alleging racial discrimination. The allocation of 20 points for nothing other than race was a large number that discriminated without any particularized or individualized consideration. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission.

1251 (1998).


Since the policy automatically awarded 20 points rather than provide individual consideration for underrepresented minorities, the court found that the admission policy was not narrowly tailored to achieve the University’s asserted interest in diversity, thus violating the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F. Supp. All Rights Reserved. Starting in 1998, the University shifted its policy to a point system where 20 points were automatically awarded if a student was a member of an underrepresented minority group, attended a predominantly minority or disadvantaged high school, or was recruited for athletics. London E1 6LT, UK, Email: minority.rights@mrgmail.orgTelephone: +44 (0)20 7422 4200

Petitioner applied and was denied, then sued for violation of her equal protection rights. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against respondents, a university, a college, and university officials, alleging racial discrimination. ... On cross-motions for summary judgment, respondents relied on Justice Powell’s principal opinion in Regents of Univ. In this scale, they provided 20 points for racial minorities. In her dissent concerning the University of Michigan’s affirmative action admissions policy in Gratz v. Bollinger, Justice Ginsburg relied upon a 1998 journal article authored by Professor Linda Hamilton Krieger.

Admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.