The Incongruities of Grutter

This article scrutinizes the inconsistencies in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision which upheld the University of Michigan’s law school affirmative action policy. The decision, which now governs university admissions policies in all 50 states, ruled that “diversity” remains a compelling state interest that legally justifies discriminating between individuals on the basis of their race in determining college admissions. This article examines two incongruous justifications offered by the Grutter court in justification for their ruling: the “critical mass” justification and the no “undo harm” argument. Neither rationale is able to withstand careful, logical examination.

Stephen J. CaldasEmail: