Affirmative Action: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Issue
Holdings
Opinion
Comments

Facts

The case involved Barbara Grutter as the petitioner and the University of Michigan Law School as the respondent. The petitioner initiated the litigation process to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court to decide if the respondent had acted within the constitution by having applied the race factor in admitting to the institution. The petitioner submitted that the institution considered the racial background of the applicants while testing scores and undergraduate accomplishments.

The petitioner stated that this provided applicants from racial and ethnic minority populations with undue advantage. Furthermore, the petitioner mentioned that the respondent did not have an affirmative action policy to guide the selection processes.

The case was initially been held at a lower Federal Court, where the petitioner argued that the respondent employed an illegitimate approach, which effectively reduced the chances of gaining admission for other applicants from racially dominant populations. The respondent affirmed that their admission process did not apply any racial quotas to the selection process. However, the approach aimed at selecting a critical mass of students from the underrepresented groups to join their program.

Issue

The legal issue which the Supreme Court faced was a civil law pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution. The petitioner sought the Court’s opinion on the constitutional accuracy of an affirmative action program on students’ admission at the University of Michigan Law School

Holdings

The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s affirmative action strategy could have met the constitutional threshold if it aimed at attaining the objective of student diversity. Furthermore, the approach was critical to demystify racial stereotypes and promote the presence of underrepresented students at the institution.

Opinion

The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s decision to apply affirmative action in the determination process of students who joined their program was constitutional. The Court maintained that the approach would have met the constitutional criteria if it promoted the goal of achieving student diversity at the institution.

The Court noted that the approach would also have been constitutional if it considered the racial background of applicants without using race for a personalized review of candidates. However, the Court stated that the approach failed to meet the constitutional criteria as it escalated some applicants’ chances of gaining admission at the expense of the others based on their racial background.

Comments

The case of Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003, held at the Supreme Court, provides direction on matters pertaining to affirmative action at training institutions. The case presents opportunities to reflect on the concepts discussed in class. The ruling is important for future cases of a similar kind. The case proves that the Constitution may promote affirmative action programs on certain grounds. The Supreme Court declared its position on affirmative action.

The Court confirmed that affirmative action initiatives could have met the constitutional threshold if they applied the racial background of the applicants as one of the aspects in a personalized assessment aimed at achieving the objective of class diversity.

The case is important because it promotes the understanding of the concept of affirmative action and its application in university admissions. It is clear from the case that affirmative actions may sometimes be unconstitutional under diverse grounds. Particularly, affirmative action will be incorrect if it is used to provide students from racial minority groups with an evident advantage in the selection process based on their nationality and background. Furthermore, the case is important because it shows a new way of interpreting the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, it creates a new benchmark on how different state courts can interpret the Fourteenth Amendment in the future.

Click Here To Order Now!

Affirmative Action: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)