The University of Michigan
Information on Admissions Lawsuits

News Releases & Articles | Statements by University Leaders & Others | Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts
¡En Español! | Archived Documents | U-M News Service | U-M Gateway

Supporting Research Court Filings Legal Overview FAQs What's New Admissions Lawsuits Home Page

Amicus Briefs—United States Supreme Court
Summary of Arguments

Briefs Filed IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY:

Anti-Defamation League
BP America, Inc.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Equal Employment Advisory Council
Massachusetts School of Law

Anti-Defamation League

  • The University of Michigan undergraduate and law school admissions systems violate the equal protection clause and Title IV.
  • Governmental racial classifications are presumptively unlawful.
  • The university and law school programs are not narrowly tailored.
  • A “bright-line” test is neither necessary nor desirable, and should be avoided.

BP America, Inc.

  • Workforce diversity is essential to the success of multinational companies.
  • Essential to realizing the goal of a diverse workforce is the availability of a diverse student body population at U.S. universities and colleges from which global companies recruit.
  • The Supreme Court should not prevent the University of Michigan from considering race, gender or ethnicity in its admission decisions if necessary to foster diversity in its student body population.
  • Global companies should not be hindered in the promotion of legitimate diversity programs.

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

  • The Marks rule has caused confusion and requires clarification.
  • Where a case has no majority opinion, the scope of the precedent is determined by the facts deemed material by any of the opinions needed to constitute a majority.
  • Bakke does not contain a holding controlling in the present case.

Equal Employment Advisory Council

  • Diversity in higher education is essential to employers in meeting their business-related diversity needs.
    1. The business case for diversity.
      1. Demographic changes translate to diversity in the consumer population.
      2. Entering the global marketplace creates a need for diversity skills.
      3. Workforce diversity improves internal performance.
      4. Workforce diversity improves the bottom line.
    1. Student body diversity in higher education contributes significantly to companies’ efforts to meet their need for workforce diversity.
  • If this Court concludes that race-conscious admissions are unlawful or unconstitutional, the Court should state its holding so as not to invalidate the affirmative action and diversity programs lawfully in use by private sector employers.
    1. Conscientious companies maintain various legitimate programs to promote equal employment opportunities, practice affirmative action, and promote and manage workforce diversity.
    2. This Court’s decision should not disturb legitimate equal employment opportunity efforts, affirmative action programs, and diversity initiatives.
  • If this Court concludes that race-conscious decisionmaking is permissible for the purpose of maintaining student body diversity, the Court should describe as clearly as possible the circumstances, if any, in which the same reasoning may apply to the use of race in employment decisions.

Massachusetts School of Law

  • The belief that diversity is necessary in law schools because a high percentage of American leaders are attorneys.
  • The long exclusion of minorities from law schools.
  • Reliance on the LSAT by American law schools and by ABA accreditors.
  • The failure of race-based affirmative action policies.
  • The American law schools’ continued reliance on the LSAT that creates the need for affirmative action.

Top of page

Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
Site last updated: September 5, 2012.   Copyright © 1997–2013 Regents of the University of Michigan.