The Language of Argument

3 7 5

T h e L a w o f D i s c r i m i n a t i o n

Gratz v. Bollinger

(539 U.S. 244, 2003)

Syllabus:

Petitioners Gratz and Hamacher, both of whom are Michigan residents

and Caucasian, applied for admission to the University of Michigan’s

(University) College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and

1997, respectively. Although the LSA considered Gratz to be well qualified

and Hamacher to be within the qualified range, both were denied early ad-

mission and were ultimately denied admission. [The] University’s Office

of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA)... considers a number of factors in

making admissions decisions, including high school grades, standardized

test scores, high school quality, curriculum strength, geography, alumni re-

lationships, leadership, and race. During all relevant periods, the Univer-

sity has considered African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans to

be “underrepresented minorities,” and it is undisputed that the University

admits virtually every qualified applicant from these groups. The current

guidelines use a selection method under which every applicant from an un-

derrepresented racial or ethnic minority group is automatically awarded

20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission....

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices O’Connor,

Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined:

We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether “the University of

Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.. ., or 42 U.S.C. § 1981... .” Because we find that

the manner in which the University considers the race of applicants in its

undergraduate admissions guidelines violates these constitutional and

1. Reconstruct Justice O’Connor ’s main argument in the selection from her
   majority opinion in Grutter.


2. Reconstruct Chief Justice Rehnquist’s main arguments in the selection
   from his dissenting opinion in Grutter. How could Justice O’Connor best
   respond? Is this response adequate? Why or why not?


3. What are Justice Thomas’s main points in the selection from his dissenting
   opinion in Grutter? How could Justice O’Connor best respond? Is this re-
   sponse adequate? Why or why not?


4. How would you have decided the Grutter case? Why?

Discussion Questions

97364_ch18_ptg01_351-382.indd 375 15/11/13 11:38 AM

some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,

affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.