Gratz v. Bollinger
(2003)
Supreme Court Case
Project
Created by: Christina Dork
Fun Fact 

The concept of affirmative action was started
by President Johnson in a 1965 executive
order which requires federal contactors to “take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their
race, creed, color, or national origin.”
•

Courtesy of: diversitysucks.com
(So you can blame him )
Historical Background








Fall 1995- Jennifer Gratz’s application to U of M’s LSA.
Fall 1997- Patrick Hamacher’s application.
Both are white residents of Michigan and were not accepted.
The Center for Individual Rights contacted them and filed a lawsuit on
their behalf in October 1997.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against U of M, the LSA, James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger.
Fought that the rights of Gratz and Hamacher to equal protection of
the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment were being violated.
U of M used a 150 point scale to rank all applicants, with 100 points
needed to guarantee admission. An automatic 20 points were given to
underrepresented ethnic group students (including African Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans)
However, a perfect SAT score was only worth 12 points.
Legal Question

“Does the University of Michigan’s use of
racial preferences in the admissions
process violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?”
YES
or
NO
The Decision

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
wrote,
“because the University’s use of race in its
current freshman admissions policy is not
narrowly tailored to achieve respondents’
asserted compelling interest in diversity, the
admissions policy violates the Equal
Protection Clause.”
The Decision (cont.)

6 votes for Gratz, 3 votes against
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rehnquist- wrote majority opinion
Stevens- wrote a dissent
O’Connor- wrote a concurrence
Scalia- voted with the majority
Kennedy- voted with the majority
Souter- wrote a dissent, joined with Stevens
Thomas- wrote a concurrence
Ginsburg- wrote a dissent, joined with Souter
Breyer- wrote a concurrence, joined with O’Connor
Precedent


June 2006- Parents v. Seattle, Meredith v. Jefferson
•
November 2008- A ballot to ban affirmative action goes
out in Nebraska and Colorado
•


Programs trying to maintain diversity in schools by
considering race are ruled unconstitutional (5-4)
Nebraska bans it (+50%), but Colorado does not.
June 2009- Ricci v. DeStefano
•
Exams were thrown out when few minority firefighters
qualified for advancement. This act was ruled as violating
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (5-4)
These cases show that even after Gratz v. Bollinger, the
U.S. population is still majorly split on whether affirmative
action is constitutional or not.
Public Support for the Decision

Support
•
Affirmative action
creates unfair
advantages for
minority students and
creates a
disadvantage for wellqualified Caucasian
students.

Oppose
•
Affirmative action
allows a diverse and
well-rounded learning
environment while
giving disadvantaged
students a boost.
Judgment and Justification

I agree with the decision that U of M’s racial
preference is unconstitutional. Giving minority
students an automatic advantage is reverse
discrimination.
•

e.g. Telling a Caucasian student that they were denied
acceptance because they are not a minority is the
same as telling an African American student that they
were denied acceptance because they’re not white…
Evidence: U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth
Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
•
“Nor shall any State…deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Cartoons 