Grutter v' Bollinger 2003

1
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

• The first prong of Strict Scrutiny the
  compelling government interest
• p.4 Today we endorse Justice Powells view that
  student body diversity is a compelling state
  interest that can justify the use of race in
  university admissions.
• What exactly is meant by diversity, and what
  are the educational benefits that it serves?
  What meanings of diversity does the Majority
  invoke?

2
Diversity as Proxy for Different Perspectives

• p.1 the policy assesses student potential to
  contribute to the learning of those around them
• P.3 the policy seeks to include students who
  may bring to the Law School a perspective
  different from that of members of groups which
  have not been the victims of discrimination
• P.5 classroom discussion is livelier, more
  spirited, and simply more enlightening and
  interesting when the students have the greatest
  possible variety of backgrounds.
• P.7 Just as growing up in a particular region
  or having particular professional experiences is
  likely to affect an individuals views, so too is
  ones own, unique experience of being a racial
  minority in a society, like our own, in which
  race unfortunately still matters.

3
Diversity as Teaching Tolerance/Anti-Stereotyping

• p.3 racial stereotypes lose their force
  because nonminority students learn there is no
  minority viewpoint but rather a variety of
  viewpoints among minority students.
• p.5 the Law School policy promotes
  cross-racial understanding, helps to break down
  racial stereotypes, and enables students to
  better understand persons of different races.
• p.5 student body diversity better prepares
  students for an increasingly diverse workforce
  and society
• P.7 The Law School does not premise its need
  for critical mass on any belief that minority
  studentsexpress some characteristic minority
  viewpoint on any issue. To the contrary,
  diminishing the force of such stereotypes isa
  critical part of the Law Schools mission

4
Diversity as Ensuring the Legitimacy of Social
Institutions

• P.6 citing the military briefs conclusion that
  a highly qualified, racially diverse officer
  corpsis essential to the militarys ability to
  fulfill its principle mission to provide national
  security.
• P.6-7 Moreover, universities, and in
  particular, law schools, represent the training
  ground for a large number of our Nations
  leaders. In order to cultivate a set of leaders
  with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it
  is necessary that the path to leadership be
  visibly open to talented and qualified
  individuals of every race and ethnicity.

5
Diversity as Ensuring Equal Opportunity

• P.6 This Court has long recognized that
  educationis the very foundation of good
  citizenship. Brown v. Board of Education. For
  this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and
  opportunity through public institutions of higher
  education must be accessible to all individuals
  regardless of race or ethnicity.

6
The Second Prong Narrowly Tailored

• Why does the Majority find that the Law Schools
  use of race is narrowly tailored to the
  compelling state interest?
• p.7-8 a critical mass is not a quota
• p.8 highly individualized, holistic review
• p. 8 No unqualified persons are admitted
• P.8 diversity includes a broad range of
  qualities and experiences
• P.9 need not exhaust every conceivable
  race-neutral alternative lotteries and
  percentage plans have other costs, workability
  issues
• P.10 must not be permanent

7
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

• Why does the Universitys use of race fail strict
  scrutiny? How is this case distinguishable from
  Grutter?

8
Women and the 14th Amendment

• Split between suffragist and abolitionist
  movements around the 14th Amendment Framers of
  the 14th and 15th amendments rejected womens
  suffrage, 14th Amendment directs voting
  protections to African American males.
• 14th Amendment equal protection clause Text is
  gender-neutral (no person), but history is
  race-specific (post-Civil War).
• Judicial Interpretation
• Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) upheld exclusion of
  women from the Illinois Bar against a Privileges
  and Immunities challenge Justice Bradley
  concurred, invoking separate spheres ideology.
• Goesart v. Cleary (1948) upheld a state law
  excluding women from bartending (except for wives
  and daughters) under equal protection.

9
The Turning Point in the Early 1970s

• Reed v. Reed (1971)
• Administrative convenience not enough
• Court purports to use rational basis test
• Coincides with strong social movement to secure
  womens rights

10
The Quest for Heightened Scrutiny Frontiero v.
Richardson

• Why is this discrimination against women at all?
  The policy hurts as many men (husbands) as women
  (servicewomen).
• How does the Brennan opinion justify strict
  scrutiny for women?
• How compelling is the analogy to race
  discrimination?
• Do the similarities outweigh the differences?
  Should the case for strict scrutiny for women
  depend on an analogy to race?