You are on page 1of 1

All the News thats fit to print

VOL. CLX. . .NO. 52,105

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION UPHELD IN GRUTTER VS BOLLINGER Supremely Indecisive


5-4 DECISION
By BRIAN KIM
WASHINGTON Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the affirmative action admissions policy that was used in the University of Michigan Law School. The official holding of the Barbara Grutter vs Lee Bollinger Supreme Court case declared that University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The suit first started when Michigan resident Barbara Grutter was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was a 3.8 GPA, 161 LSAT student who concluded that she was rejected on the premise of her race. She found this to be a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights which state that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. The U.S District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled in favor of Grutter saying that the University of Michigan admission process was unconstitutional. The University, represented by Lee Bollinger, appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, who reversed the decision. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts final ruling, led by Justice Sandra Day OConnor stated that the United States Consitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Reactions of this court case varied Continued on Page A25

The New York Times


2003 The New York Times

Late Edition Today scattered clouds, low 70s. Tonight clear, low 40s. Tomorrow Sunny, high 90s.

NEW YORK, TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2003

$1.25

By BRIAN KIM
Yesterday, two Supreme Court decisions came in: the Gruller vs Bollinger and Gratz vs Bollinger cases. They were both lawsuits against the University of Michigan regarding affirmative action. Gruller vs Bollinger was to determine whether affirmative action in and of itself was constitutional to use in the admissions process. Gratz vs Bollinger decided if it was fair for UMich to use affirmative action as a part of their points system of admissions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action in Gruller vs Bollinger but against it in Gratz vs Bollinger. Am I the only one who finds some wrong with this? How could the Supreme Court possibly rule affirmative action unconstitutional in one case but constitutional in another? I understand that the circumstances were different in each case but it still doesnt explain why there were two totally different decision on two very similar cases. UMich admitted to the Supreme Court during the Gruller case that they did not intend to use affirmative action as a part of their admissions process forever, but that it was simply a temporary fix. So what they basically said was that theyll stop racial profiling in the future, but for now, it works for them so let them use it. What I also find somewhat unbelievable is that the Supreme Court discussed both cases in a joint matter. The decisions for both cases came at the same time. It almost feels like the Supreme Court of the United States didnt feel like dealing with the two cases at different times and decided to deal with them at the same time. The whole situation doesnt feel right. I wouldve felt more comfortable if the two decisions were more in agreement with each other. It just doesnt make sense that the court dealt with both cases at the same time and came out with different decisions. I seriously hope that the courts will show a better display of discretion and judgment in the future.

U.S. Supreme Court, Back row (left to right): Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Hackett Souter, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer; front row (left to right): Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, William Hubbs Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy.

Gratz vs Bollinger Decision Declares UMich Point System Unconsitutional


WASHINGTON - B

By BRIAN KIM Court in regards to affirmative action being Prior to the suit, the University of a determining factor in the University Michigan admissions process involved using of WASHINGTON Yesterday, the race as part of a points system. Michigans admissions process. Supreme Court announced their The courts holding stated that A state Michigan residents Jennifer Gratz and decision for the Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher applied to the University of university's admission policy violated the Patrick Hamacher vs Lee Bollinger case, Michigans College of Literature, Science, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth ruling in favor of Gratz and Hamacher. the Amendment because its ranking system gave Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively, This 6-3 decision was a bit less closer automatic point increase to all racial were both denied admissions. They were and an than the Barbara Grutter vs Lee both contacted by the Center for Individual minorities rather than making individual Bollinger case which came out in a 5-4 Rights who sued the University of Michigan in determinations. Eastern District of Michigan decision. affirmed in part, reversed and remanded. October 1997. Gratz vs Bollinger was another case Continued on Page A25 discussed by the Supreme

People in Disbelief Over Supreme Court Decisions


other half felt that justice was served. I cant believe that admissions based mostly on ones race is actually considered NEW YORK After the Supreme constitutional. If it were the colored people Court decision from Gruller vs Bollinger being the ones rejected because of their and Gratz vz Bollinger came in, I went race, this whole case wouldve ruled towards out to the streets to see what people them, said Upper East Side resident Julius thought of the decision. Unsurprisingly MacMillon. there was quite a mixed reaction by the Finally, people are waking up realizing public. that some racial groups just dont typically One half of the people were outragedget the same opportunities that the rich by the decision while the white kids do, said Lawrence Fisher, a representative for the NAACP. I truly think that decisions like these are what is destroying our society. Admissions to an institution of higher learning should be based on merit, not background, said John Haversham, a Park Slope resident.

By BRIAN KIM

Brian Kim Period 1 1/18/11 Grutter v Bollinger

Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Lawrence Fisher of the NAACP