Facts
- Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School.
- Grutter sued university officials, alleging the Law School’s race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The Law School received more than 3,500 applications for a class of about 350 students.
- The Law School adopted a written admissions policy designed to evaluate applicants through a flexible review of academic indicators and nonnumerical factors, including personal statements, recommendations, essays, and other “soft variables.”
- The policy treated diversity broadly and allowed substantial weight for many forms of contribution, while reaffirming a commitment to include African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students who might otherwise be present in low numbers.
- The policy sought a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students to realize educational benefits associated with a diverse student body.
- After a bench trial, the district court held the use of race unlawful and enjoined consideration of race in admissions.
- The Sixth Circuit (en banc) reversed, concluding that diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest and the policy fit that framework.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI.
Issues
- Whether a public law school may consider race as a factor in admissions consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.
- Whether student-body diversity in higher education constitutes a compelling governmental interest under strict scrutiny.
- Whether the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored, including whether “critical mass” operated as a quota, whether individualized review occurred, and whether workable race-neutral alternatives were required.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the educational benefits of student-body diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest.
- The Court held the Law School’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored because it used individualized, holistic review and treated race as a possible “plus” factor rather than a decisive, mechanical preference.
- The Court concluded the “critical mass” goal did not function as a quota because it did not reserve a fixed number or percentage of seats for any racial group and lacked rigid numerical targets.
- The Court ruled strict scrutiny does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative, but does require good-faith consideration of workable alternatives.
- The Court found the policy did not unduly burden nonminority applicants because all candidates competed in a single admissions pool and no applicant was automatically excluded based on race.
- The Court emphasized that race-conscious measures must be limited in duration and should have a logical end point.
Legal Principles
- Governmental racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny and are constitutional only if narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.
- In higher education, obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body may qualify as a compelling interest.
- Narrow tailoring in admissions permits race to be considered as one factor in an individualized, holistic evaluation; quotas, separate tracks, and automatic numerical preferences are impermissible.
- A “critical mass” objective may be permissible if it is not a fixed set-aside and does not operate as a rigid numerical quota.
- Strict scrutiny requires serious, good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives, but not proof that every possible alternative was tried or would fail.
- Race-conscious admissions should be time-limited and directed toward an endpoint where racial preferences are no longer necessary.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s holistic admissions policy, holding that the educational benefits of diversity can be a compelling interest and that individualized, nonmechanical consideration of race aimed at achieving a nonquota “critical mass” can satisfy strict scrutiny and comply with Title VI.