U Michigan Quotas WERE Crumbling!
In 2001 everyone was more hopeful!

Undergrad Gratz v. Bollinger & Law School Grutter v. Bollinger

Newest News Stories regarding the historic University of Michigan decisions appear below.

Case:  Gratz v. Bollinger
(U Mich Undergraduate Quotas)

Court:  Federal District Court in Detroit, MI
Judge:  Patrick J. Duggan (Reagan appointee)
Docket:  97-CV-75231-DT

• The Judge ruled that there was no need to proceed with a trial and that the record as it stood was sufficient to find the University of Michigan guilty of intentional racial discrimination from 1995 through 1998.  Victory for rejected white students Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hammacher.
• The Judge ruled that while the old racial preference system was illegal, U of Michigan's new, improved racial preferences are legal.
• NEWS Stories Immediately Below

Soft Bigotry Wins in Court; Legal Game Far from Over (12/19/00)

          [Wall Street Journal] -- "Proponents of racial preferences may have received only a temporary reprieve ... The Center for Individual Rights -- which won the 1996 Hopwood v. Texas case in the Fifth Circuit, holding the University of Texas Law School's racial preferences unconstitutional -- says it will appeal Judge Patrick Duggan's ruling in Michigan. Judge Duggan's decision seems vulnerable on several important counts.

          "For one, it relied on some highly dubious social science purporting to show that students exposed to "diversity" do better in life. ... Meanwhile, the judge simply brushed aside countervailing testimony submitted by the National Association of Scholars, an independent group that has been critical of preferences and political correctness.

          "And while the judge's decision to uphold the current Michigan admissions system got virtually all the attention, he also struck down the preference system that had been in place at the university until 1998.  The university had quietly dropped that system after one of its own professors had discovered, through a Freedom of Information Act request, that Michigan was using an obviously illegal quota system.

          "Yet even the university acknowledges that the results of the new system, which gives undergraduate minority applicants an automatic 20-point advantage (on a 150-point scale that provides only 12 points for a perfect SAT score) are no different than the old. As the judge himself was forced to concede: "If race were not taken into account, the probability of acceptance would be cut dramatically."

          "In other words, race is arguably still far more than the "plus" factor allowed under the 1978 Bakke decision. If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, the justices might narrow the grounds for racial preferences still further--or strike down the tenuous Bakke decision altogether."

(Excerpted from the column by Thomas J. Bray 12/19/00 in the Wall Street Journal)

[Last known link http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/tbray/?id=65000803 ]

Affirmative Action Plan Is Upheld at Michigan (12/14/00)

          The New York Times reports:   "A federal judge [partially] upheld the University of Michigan's affirmative action program yesterday, ruling that diversity is a critical component of higher education and that colleges and universities can continue to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions.

          "The judge, Patrick J. Duggan of Federal District Court in Detroit, said the university had violated the United States Constitution from 1995 to 1998 with a two-tiered admissions system that admitted white and minority applicants under different criteria."

          White UM applicant, Jennifer Gratz, sued the University for reverse discrimination, forcing the University to dismantle its two-tiered "black vs. white" system before Gratz's case came to trial. 

          Gratz and her attorneys applauded Judge Duggan's finding that the old admissions system was illegally discriminatory.   CIR attorneys who represented Gratz said they will probably appeal other portions of Duggan's ruling because the current admissions system is only "cosmetically different" than the old, disbanded program.  Black and Hispanic applicants are awarded a 20 point bonus for the color of their skin (on a 150 point scale) under the "new" system.  CIR may also seek compensation for those students who were denied admissions between 1995 and 1998 under the old two-tiered system.

          Plaintiff Jennifer Gratz said "I'm excited that they were wrong and they're being told that they were wrong," according to the Times.

          On the other hand, Judge Duggan also ruled that Michigan's revised racial preferences policy --  which grants a 20 point advantage to black and Hispanic applicants -- is "perfectly legal".

          Judge Duggan said, in part, "A racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant educational benefits such that diversity, in the context of higher education, constitutes a compelling governmental interest.  Although fixed racial quotas and racial balancing are not necessary to achieving that goal, the consideration of an applicant's race during the admissions process necessarily is.  In situations such as this it is often a thin line that divides the permissible from the impermissible," according to the Times.

          Judge Duggan was appointed to the federal bench in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

          "The 50-page ruling, which preempted a trial by granting summary judgment motions, comes just 10 days after a federal appeals court in California upheld a now-defunct affirmative action program at the University of Washington."   The California ruling declared that racial preferences in admissions are not legal in California and Washington State because those states have passed voter initiatives banning such a practice, but that the other states in the 9th Circuit may still practice racial preferences in admissions.  (For further info see:  9th U.S. Circuit California decision)

Conflict with Hopwood:   Duggan's opinion in the U of Michigan case, and the California appeals court ruling, appear to directly conflict with the landmark Hopwood decision which eliminated the use of racial preferences at the University of Texas Law School.  That 1996 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans prohibited colleges in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana from using racial preferences in student admissions decisions.

UM Law School Case:  A separate case -- Grutter v. Bollinger -- against the University of Michigan Law School's racial preferences program is set for trial in January 2001.

          Terence J. Pell, CEO of the Center for Individual Rights, said:  "This is the opening innings of a very long ball game here.  This game is far from over, and it's not clear that the Michigan system will survive judicial scrutiny," according to the New York Times.

(Based on the story by Jodie Wilgoren in the New York Times 12/14/00)

[Last known link http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/national/14MICH.html ]

Use of Race in Admissions Upheld (12/14/00)

          The Washington Post:  "A federal judge in Detroit yesterday upheld the use of race as a factor in college admissions, ruling that the University of Michigan's affirmative action program is justified by the educational benefits of racial diversity.

          "...In making his decision, Duggan did not hold a trial and instead issued a summary judgment. While the ruling affirmed Michigan's race-conscious admissions policy, it also found that the process used by the university prior to 1998 was illegal because it reserved some seats for under-represented minorities.

          "That policy was in place when two white students sued Michigan in 1997, alleging they were illegally denied admission to the university because of their race. The pair, who attended other Michigan public universities, are now eligible to collect damages, which will be decided by the court."

          The Center for Individual rights brought the suit on behalf of Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hammacher who had been denied admission at UM because seats had been reserved for less-qualifed "minority" applicants.  Curt A. Levey from the Center for Individual Rights, told the Post he is pleased that the Court found for plaintiffs Gratz and Hammacher that the school had illegally discriminated against them in 1995 and 1997.  Levey also expressed disappointment that the Court found Michigan's "new, improved" preferences program to be legal. Mr. Levey said "I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two [admissions] systems," according to the Post.

          Under the revised preferences system, Michigan awards a 20 point advantage for skin color to applicants who are black, Hispanic or Native American (on a 150 point scale).  The same rating system only awards 12 points for having an SAT score of 1600.

          "The Michigan [case is] at odds with a 1996 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which barred colleges from using race as an admission factor in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Another case involving the University of Georgia is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The conflict has fueled speculation that the U.S. Supreme Court may soon take a case allowing it to rule directly on the use of race as a factor in college admissions for the first time since 1978."

(Based on the story by Michael A. Fletcher on page A02 of the Washington Post 12/14/00)

[Last known link http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3531-2000Dec13?language=printer ]

Case:  Gratz v. Bollinger
(U Mich Law School Quotas Ruling 3/26/01)

Court:  U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Judge:  Bernard Friedman
Docket:  97-CV-75028-DT

• The judge ruled that the U Mich Law School admissions were an impermissible, unconstitutional racial-quota system.
• NEWS Stories Immediately Below

A hurtful decision (The Michigan Daily)

          "Yesterday Judge Bernard Friedman granted the plaintiff's request in the case Grutter v. Bollinger for an injunction against using race as a factor in Law School admissions.  Friedman's ruling comes as a blow to affirmative action at the University, yet surely will not go uncontested in a court of appeals.

          "In his decision, Friedman stated that while "there is no question about the long and tragic history of race discrimination in this country" the Law School's reasoning for using race in the admissions process is not a "compelling state interest." 

          [The Michigan Daily believes that] "...using race as a factor in admissions to assemble a racially diverse student body is a an overwhelmingly compelling state interest.  Arguments made by the student intervenors were a moving testimony to the value of a learning environment composed of students from all manners of racial backgrounds.

          "...Friedman's ruling, while disappointing, is not devastating. Affirmative action is invaluable in promoting a diverse and tolerant University environment. Both the University and the student intervenors have a strong case and will surely take that case - successfully - to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals."

[Last known link http://www.michigandaily.com/articles.php?uniqid=20010328e01 ]

Judge Friedman ignores important case for diversity (Detroit Free Press 03/28/01)

          "In one breath, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman acknowledged "the long and tragic history of race discrimination in this country." But in the next, he found no "compelling state interest" in the University of Michigan trying to acknowledge that history, address present-day discrimination and build a better future. And so Friedman struck down the U-M Law School's admissions policy because race was a factor in it. Tuesday's long-awaited decision came in a suit filed by the Center for Individual Rights, which has been crusading for years to end affirmative action programs. The Friedman decision disregarded two recent findings to the contrary... He essentially disregarded evidence presented during 64 days of testimony showing the impact of historic and present-day discrimination, bias in standardized tests and inequalities between whites and blacks in educational opportunities.  Friedman also was apparently unmoved by the wisdom of Chief Justice Fred Vinson of the 1950 U.S. Supreme Court, who said in ordering the integration of the University of Texas Law School: "A law school cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions from which the law interacts."..."

[Last known link http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/eaff28_20010328.htm ]

Law School admissions ruled illegal (Michigan Daily)

          "Rejecting the University's defense of its affirmative action policies, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the Law School's use of race as a factor in admissions, declaring that student diversity is not a compelling state interest. Friedman also refuted the arguments of student intervenors in the case, ruling further that a race conscious admissions system cannot be used to remedy past discrimination, nor "level the playing field" between minority and non-minority applicants.

          "Law School Dean Jeffrey Lehman, in a telephone interview from Berkeley, Calif., expressed great disappointment over the decision. "This is not only a rejection of the University's arguments, but a rejection of two decades of settled understanding within higher education," Lehman said. The crux of Friedman's decision is his interpretation of the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, University of California Regents vs. Bakke. Racial quotas were outlawed in the case, but Justice Lewis Powell, writing only for himself, endorsed the use of race as a "plus factor" to achieve racial diversity.

          "...University President Lee Bollinger noted the sharp contrast between Friedman's decision and that of U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan in the nearly identical suit filed against the College of Literature, Science and the Arts.  In December, Duggan ruled that LSA's current admissions policy is legal but that the "grid system" used from 1995 to 1998 was unconstitutional.   "This is a district court holding that the opinions of Justice Powell, which higher education has relied on for 23 years, was not and is not good constitutional law," Bollinger said in a telephone interview from San Diego.

          "Judge Duggan held precisely the contrary as has the 9th Circuit. We believe those courts are right, that higher education is right, that President Ford, General Motors, associated corporations and Colin Powell were also right," he said, referring to the numerous public statements of support solicited by the University. Friedman excused Bollinger, Lehman and former Law School Director of Admissions Dennis Shields as defendants in the case because they had "attempted to comply with Bakke as they interpreted the decision, while still striving to fulfill their admissions goals." Although Friedman agreed diversity is a "laudable" educational goal, he said the Law School's system fails to achieve diversity in a way that is fair to all applicants..." (Based on the Michigan Daily story by Anna Clark and Jen Fish Daily News Writer)

[Last known link http://www.michigandaily.com/articles.php?uniqid=20010328n01 ]

U-M law school's race policy rejected (Detroit Free Press 03/28/01)

          "Lawyers for the University of Michigan and a group of minority students said Tuesday they will immediately appeal a decision by U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman that the university's race-conscious law school admissions policy is unconstitutional.

          "In a 90-page decision released Tuesday, Friedman rejected U-M's arguments that race was one of many factors used in admissions and said the law school's admissions policy overemphasizes race to attain the functional equivalent of quotas of minority students.  "The evidence shows that race is not, as defendants have argued, merely one factor which is considered among many others in the admissions process," Friedman wrote.  "The evidence indisputably demonstrates that the law school places a very heavy emphasis on an applicant's race in deciding whether to accept or reject."

          "Barbara Grutter, who sued U-M in 1997 claiming she was denied admission in favor of less-qualified minorities, said she was gratified by Friedman's ruling...

          "Liz Barry, U-M's deputy counsel, said U-M lawyers would also ask Friedman to stay his order that forbade U-M from using race in law school admissions. "We believe Judge Friedman's decision is wrong and flies in the face of over 20 years of U.S. Supreme Court law," Barry said. "The ruling is contrary to every selective university in the country."...

          "Friedman rejected U-M's definition of critical mass of minority students as an "amorphous concept" that cannot be quantified. He wrote that the school's unwritten policy of enrolling a minimum of 10-12 percent minority students "is practically indistinguishable from a quota system." "While the law school has not set aside a fixed number of seats, there is no principled difference between a fixed number of seats and an essentially fixed minimum percentage figure," Friedman wrote. "Under either system, students of all races are not competing against each other for each seat, with race being simply one factor among many which may tip the balance." Friedman also rejected a landmark 1978 Supreme Court ruling in the Bakke case that said diversity in education is a compelling state interest. The diversity rationale has been used for more than two decades by select universities and colleges to justify the use of race in admissions..."  (Based on the story by Maryanne George and Erik Lords, Free Press staff writers)

[Last known link http://www.freep.com/news/education/affirm28_20010328.htm ]

U-M race policy declared illegal (03/28/01)

Bollinger calls ruling 'an American tragedy'

          ANN ARBOR -- "A federal judge ruled as unconstitutional Tuesday the University of Michigan Law School's use of race in admissions, a decision that conflicts with other rulings and likely will land at the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court.

          "The university said it would immediately ask to delay Judge Bernard Friedman's order to stop using race as a criterion and appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ... Friedman's conflicting opinion on Tuesday -- that it is unconstitutional for the law school to consider the skin color of applicants -- reflects the growing split in courtrooms and boardrooms across the country about how far institutions can go to promote diversity.

          "Lower courts regularly disagree over whether classroom diversity is a constitutional reason to use race preferences, said Doug Kmiec, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University.

          "...U-M's appeal already in works - Tuesday's University of Michigan affirmative action ruling is a controversial step in what's almost certain to be months of wrangling to come. Among the next anticipated developments:

• "The university is expected to request an immediate ruling that would delay U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman's decision from taking effect -- thus allowing U-M to continue to use race as a factor in law school admissions, at least temporarily.

• "The school plans to appeal Tuesday's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Already appealed was the December ruling by Judge Patrick Duggan, who decided the opposite: that U-M's undergraduate admissions policy is legal.

• "It's probable that those two Michigan cases will be combined, said U-M attorney Liz Barry.  They involve different students and policies, but the issues of law are similar.

• "If Friedman's ruling is upheld, a damages phase would begin, at which point the judges would determine how to compensate those who were discriminated against.

          "... U-M President Lee Bollinger, who has staked his professional reputation on winning the right to use race in admissions, predicted a setback for equality unless the ruling is reversed. "The selective institutions and individual law schools will experience a precipitous decline of racial and ethnic diversity. This is an American tragedy," Bollinger said.

          "It is a victory for Barbara Grutter, the 47-year-old Plymouth Township mother of two whose 1997 suit claimed she would have been granted admission if not for the school's preference for minorities with lower qualifications. "I have known all along that discrimination is wrong. I didn't need a judge to tell me I was right," she said. "But it doesn't mean I wasn't so happy and thrilled that he did." If the ruling holds, she stands to gain admission to the law school and, perhaps, monetary damages..."  (Based on the 3/28/01 story by Janet Naylor Vandenabeele and Jodi S. Cohen / The Detroit News)

[Last known link http://www.detroitnews.com/2001/schools/0103/28/a01-205062.htm ]

Supporters place hope on appeal (03/28/01)

Opponents say ruling may be death knell for affirmative action

DETROIT -- "Opponents hailed and supporters bemoaned the latest federal court ruling striking down affirmative action on Tuesday, with both groups saying it could set back minority gains in university admissions. "We're saddened by this," said Dearborn attorney Alison Nelson, the president of the 350-member Wolverine Bar Association, which represents local black lawyers. "It needs immediate appellate review, and we are hopeful that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse it. "It shouldn't just be the black legal community worried," she said. "This is a diversity issue that all people should be concerned about."

          "U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Tuesday that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy is unconstitutional...

          "There's no doubt that race-based affirmative action is living on borrowed time," said Ward Connerly, an affirmative action opponent and the University of California regent who orchestrated Proposition 209, a California law that bans racial preferences in state agencies. He is also an African American. "It looks like the U.S. Supreme Court will have to take up the issue now." Connerly said the solution to ending affirmative action is to ensure that the nation's failing urban and rural school systems are overhauled and that standardized testing is scratched if it is deemed flawed.

          "Local sentiment was even stronger. "No longer will University of Michigan bureaucrats be able to steal admissions, scholarships and jobs from more qualified Asian and white women and men and give them to less qualified and unqualified minorities," said Dave Jaye, a Republican state senator from Macomb County and longtime affirmative action opponent.

          "U-M continued to get support from the business world, where a General Motors spokesman said diverse student bodies help America's workers...

About the federal judges:

Judge Bernard A. Friedman --

• "Decided: The University of Michigan's Law School admissions policy is unconstitutional because it uses race to achieve diversity. The aim of diversity may be laudable or beneficial, he said, but it is not important enough to use race. Even if diversity was a compelling state interest, the Law School's use of race in admissions was too ambiguous.

• "Appointed: By Republican President Ronald Reagan in June 1988.

• "Law degree: Detroit College of Law.

• "Previously: Attorney for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, judge on Michigan's 48th District Court.

Judge Patrick J. Duggan --

• "Decided: Diversity in education is a compelling state interest, which the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions program rightly considers as one of many factors.

• "Appointed: In October 1986 by Republican President Ronald Reagan.

• "Law degree: University of Detroit Law School.

• "Previously: Senior partner in private law firm; adjunct professor, Madonna University; visiting judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."

(Based on the 3/28/01 story by Oralandar Brand-Williams / The Detroit News)

[Last known link http://www.detroitnews.com/2001/schools/0103/28/a07-205114.htm ]

U.S. Court Bars Race as Factor in School Entry (03/28/01)

          "A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the race-conscious admissions system of the University of Michigan's law school is unconstitutional, contradicting a December ruling in a parallel case that upheld the university's affirmative action policy for undergraduate admissions. The earlier ruling, by another judge on the same court and now on appeal, was seen as a flicker of hope for a movement fallen out of vogue while the new ruling joins a string of defeats for affirmative action over the last six years. The undergraduate approach is far more explicit about using race, yet the law school's more subtle system was struck down, as the judges offered sharply divergent views of the
importance of diversity in higher education. "All racial distinctions are inherently suspect and presumptively invalid," Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the United States District Court in Detroit wrote in his decision yesterday. "Whatever solution the law school elects to pursue, it must be race-neutral."..."  (Based on the New York Times 03/28/01 story by Jodi Wilgoren)

[Last known link http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/28/national/28MICH.html ]

"Diversity" Goes on Trial & Loses (03/28/01)

National Review, by By Clint Bolick, litigation director at the Institute for Justice

          "Tuesday's decision by federal district Judge Bernard Friedman striking down racial preferences in law-school admissions at the University of Michigan was a big win for the principle of nondiscrimination - and for true affirmative action (more on that later). It was an even bigger loss for
defenders of racial preferences, who put on the best case they could muster - and lost, big-time...In the process, they revealed a great deal.

          "First, that the preferences are big...a black applicant has 258 times better odds of obtaining admission than a similarly qualified white student...

          "Second, the case revealed that "diversity" and "affirmative action" are euphemisms for racial profiling...

          "Third, the case demonstrated that supporters of preferences crave racial balancing, not real diversity...

          "Judge Friedman rejected both diversity and societal discrimination as a justification for preferences. Acknowledging that Justice Lewis Powell wrote approvingly of diversity as a justification for race-conscious university admissions in his 1978 opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the judge found that the real motivation for the preferences was racial balance, which is constitutionally impermissible.

          "What's more, even if diversity is an appropriate rationale, it could be accomplished by looking at applicants as individuals rather than as members of racial or ethnic groups...Ironically, some of the social scientists testified that black and other minority students are underrepresented in law schools because they are often subjected to abysmal K-12 educational experiences. Exactly right! Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, in their outstanding book America in Black and White, found that the average black high-school senior is four academic years behind the average white senior. But we cannot solve the problems of K-12 education by adding points to law school admissions tests...

          "The intellectual charade in defense of racial preferences is crumbling. Cheers to the Center for Individual Rights, which has waged this battle in courts in Texas, Washington State, and Michigan. And cheers to Judge Friedman, whose thorough, sensitive, and principled opinion takes us another step forward. Toward a true era of racial healing." (Based on the National Review article 03/28/01 by Clint Bolick, litigation director for the Institute for Justice.)

[Last known link http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bolick032801.shtml ]

More News Links on Judge Friedman's Historic Ruling:
(Posted links are the last known URL address; news links may expire at any time.)

Boston Globe:  http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/087/nation/Judge_throws_out_race_based_admissions+.shtml

Washington Times:  http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2001328224335.htm

Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/natpol/20010328/t000026645.html

Michigan Daily (U Mich):  http://www.uwiretoday.com/topnews032701001.html

Chronicle of Higher Education (Pay Site):
http://www.chronicle.com/daily/2001/03/2001032801n.htm

END: (2) Archives: News and Analysis 2001

0. Archives
Historical Case Overview