Amicus Briefs—Summary of Arguments
Grutter v. Bollinger
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University
NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
The Hon. John Conyers, Jr., The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, The Honorable Kwame M. Kilpatrick, The Honorable Dennis W. Archer, and Saul A. Green, Esq.
Michigan Attorney General
Law School Deans
General Motors
Fortune 500 Companies
Attorney General of Ohio
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Ohio State University College of Law Faculty
Clinical Legal Education Association
National Asian Pacific American Bar, et al
American Bar Association
Black Law Students Alliance
1. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)
- Based on Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke, the District Court erred in forbidding the Law School from using race as a consideration in admissions decisions.
- Bakke must be read to permit affirmative action programs that allow for individualized consideration of applications in which racial diversity is used as a “plus” factor with respect to racial minorities who would otherwise be under-represented in the student body — per Marks v United States and “The Harvard Plan” endorsed in Bakke.
- The importance of diversity to the educational experience (and UAW’s history of involvement with issues of civil rights and diversity).
- The students’ perception that their educational experiences play an important role in their ability to maintain strong and effective working relationships with people of different races and cultures is absolutely correct and is essential to success in today’s world.
2. The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University
- Promoting educational diversity is a compelling governmental interest.
- Social science studies support the compelling governmental interest in promoting diversity.
- UM’s undergraduate admissions policies are narrowly tailored.
3. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund
- Compliance with U.S. international treaty obligations supports the finding that LSA’s interest in giving attention to race in selecting students is compelling constitutional mandates.
- U.S. treaty law permits affirmative action and imposes affirmative duty to assure equality.
- High courts of other nations have upheld affirmative action under comparable circumstances.
4. The Hon. John Conyers, Jr., The Honorable Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, The Honorable Kwame M. Kilpatrick, The Honorable Dennis W. Archer, and Saul A. Green, Esq.
- UM’s undergraduate and Law School admissions plans are Constitutional; state institutions may consider race for purposes other than remedying past discrimination.
- Diversity in higher education is essential to American democracy, is a compelling state interest, and is a Constitutionally permissible educational purpose.
- The Law School’s desire to admit an integrated class of students is Constitutionally permissible to ensure full participation in the political process. Conversely, an admissions process that excludes certain communities of citizens from participation undermines the political legitimacy of state institutions and will ultimately harm African Americans economically, educationally and politically.
5. American Council on Education, et al
- Diversity improves the quality of higher education and is essential to the basic purposes of higher education by fostering the examined life, preparing students for citizenship, enhancing education for economic and scientific progress, and breaking down barriers to advance the chief purpose of higher education.
- Racial and ethnic diversity is valuable to the world in which we live.
- Research confirms that racial and ethnic diversity improve educational outcomes.
- Colleges and universities require/are entitled to latitude, based on their judgment and experience, in determining how to assemble student bodies.
- Supreme Court precedent and the consensus of educators show that diversity in higher education serves a compelling interest.
6. Michigan Attorney General
- The University’s choice to seek to attain a diverse student body to advance its educational mission falls within the institutional autonomy afforded by the First Amendment and is, therefore, permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The University’s choice to enroll a diverse student body is entitled to deference under article 8, section 5 of Michigan’s Constitution.
7. Law School Deans
- Bakke permits law schools to consider race in university admissions to further diversity and its holding has been followed by colleges, universities and law schools across the nation.
- The Supreme Court’s post-Bakke decisions establish that diversity is a compelling interest in university admissions, citing Wygant, Croson, Metro Broadcasting, and Adarand.
- Diversity is a compelling interest in law school admissions because it furthers the educational mission and benefits all students.
- The district court’s decision should be reversed because it threatens academic freedom.
8. General Motors
- Institutions of higher education have a compelling interest in selecting diverse student bodies.
- Success in today’s business world demands cross-cultural competence and the ability to view problems from multiple perspectives — skills best learned in diverse academic environments.
- Elimination of affirmative action in educational institutions would deprive businesses of well-trained minority candidates who are essential to our nation’s economic success.
9. Fortune 500 Companies
- Pursuit of diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest because it prepares all students to succeed in and enhance the global community.
10. Attorney General of Ohio
- Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit state universities from adopting race-sensitive admissions policies in an effort to achieve diversity among the student body.
- Both legal precedent and social evidence established that racial diversity is critical to elicit experiences from students with various backgrounds.
- Race is a permissible factor in law school admissions in order to identify applicants most likely to succeed in the practice of law.
11. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
- Bakke, buttressed by other Supreme Court decisions, provides controlling precedent that racial diversity is a compelling state interest.
- Supreme Court decisions prior to Bakke embrace the importance of racial diversity in higher education.
- Bakke’s diversity justification is a logical extension of the Court’s prior decisions that emphasize the critical role of diversity in education.
- Post-Bakke opinions have reaffirmed that the goal of diversity is a compelling state interest.
- The lower court exceeded its authority by speculating on the current state of the law concerning the compelling nature of racial diversity in higher education.
12. Ohio State University College of Law Faculty
- A critical mass of minority students is necessary to obtain the educational benefits of diversity; seeking a critical mass is not a quota or set-aside.
- Professional achievements of minority graduates from OSU corroborate the Lempert Study.
- Career success of minority lawyers cannot be explained as ongoing affirmative action, but does demonstrate value of a diverse student group.
- The background and career of Dean Williams exemplify the educational benefits of diversity.
13. Clinical Legal Education Association
- Understanding various perspectives through exposure to diverse student populations is critical to clinical education.
- Clinical legal education is essential to teaching law students skills necessary to the practice of law. This has a predominantly minority client base. Viewpoint and racial diversity are critical to law students’ self-evaluation of biases that might lead to misunderstandings or rejections of their clients’ actions, attitudes or viewpoints.
- Exposure to viewpoint and racial diversity is also critical to training law students to be effective advocates in the multicultural practice of today’s legal profession.
- An understanding of different perspectives cannot be developed without a critical mass of minority students.
14. National Asian Pacific American Bar, et al.
- Enhancing diversity is a compelling state interest and the trial court erred in holding otherwise.
- Under Marks test, Justice Powell’s conclusion that enhancing diversity is a compelling state interest was a holding of the Bakke court because it constituted the narrowest grounds upon which that Court permitted race to be used in school admissions.
- Even assuming Justice Powell’s diversity rationale is not controlling, the trial court erred in failing to conduct a strict scrutiny analysis to determine whether enhancing diversity is a compelling state interest.
- Enhancing diversity is a compelling interest because it benefits all students, including groups that are not explicitly targeted beneficiaries.
- Plaintiff improperly allies herself with Asian Pacific Americans and, in so doing, attempts to use Asian Pacific Americans to justify her politically difficult case.
- Plaintiff does not speak for Asian Pacific Americans because she is not similarly situated; i.e., Asian Pacific Americans are underrepresented in the legal field, negative stereotyping is still common and still dangerous, and Asian Pacific Americans have faced discrimination in various facets of American life, including in education.
15. American Bar Association
- Diversity of the bar is vital to its ability to serve all Americans fully and fairly. The courts have recognized the need for and supported the achievement of increased diversity within the bar; diversity is vital to the attorney-client relationship.
- Diversity is necessary to ensure the effectiveness and legitimacy of the legal system. The bar and judiciary are perceived as hostile to minorities and the government has a compelling interest in a diverse bar to foster and maintain public confidence in the judicial system as well as preserve and enhance public confidence in the government.
16. Black Law Students Alliance
- The equal protection clause should be interpreted consistently with its “one pervading purpose.”
- “Equal” protection cannot mean “same” protection because underrepresented minority applications and white applicants are not similarly situated.
- Equal protection law must account for diversity and fair access as legitimate and compelling interests.
- The law school’s admissions policy does not violate a properly-interpreted equal protection clause.
|
