Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Sixth Circuit Rules, the defendant
intervenors make the following disclosure:

1.       Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation?
None of the defendant intervenors are corporations or subsidiaries or
affiliates of a public owned corporation.

2.       Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, that
has a financial interest in the outcome? No.

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL AFFILIATIONS AND
FINANCIAL INTEREST … … … i

TABLE OF CONTENTS … … … ii

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT … … … iii

STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE
JURISDICTION … … … 1

STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW … … … 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE … … … 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS … … … 2

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT … … … 2

ARGUMENT … … … 3

CONCLUSION … … … 3

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE … … … 5

DEFENDANT INTERVENORS' DESIGNATION
OF APPENDIX CONTENTS … … … A-1

The intervening defendants request that oral argument be scheduled
because of the overriding importance of the issues in the case.

The intervening defendants adopt the defendants' jurisdictional
statement.

The intervening defendants adopt the statements of issues for review
made by the defendants in this appeal and by themselves in their related
appeal, Grutter v Bollinger, COA No. 01-1516.

The intervening defendants adopt the statements of the case made by
the defendants in this appeal and by themselves in their related appeal,
Grutter v Bollinger, COA No. 01-1516.

The intervening defendants participate in the instant appeal to express
in formal and procedural terms their position that the issues in the two
Grutter v Bollinger appeals are bound together and that each of the parties
consequently has a role to play in both appeals.

The intervening defendants adopt the factual statements made by the
defendants in this appeal and by themselves in their related appeal, Grutter v
Bollinger, COA No. 01-1516.

The defendants' affirmative action plan is clearly justified by the
compelling state interests in integration, reduction of bias and
discrimination, and diversity that have been previously identified in the
instant appeal and in the intervenors' related appeal. In addition, the plan is
narrowly tailored; no alternative to affirmative action could prevent the
resegregation of the University of Michigan Law School and higher
education generally.

BECAUSE INTEGRATION, THE REDUCTION OF BIAS AND
DISCRIMINATION IN ADMISSIONS, AND RACIAL DIVERSITY
ARE COMPELLING STATE INTERESTS, AND BECAUSE
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS THE ONLY MEANS TO ACHIEVE
THEM, THE LAW SCHOOL'S ADMISSIONS PLAN IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND.

The intervening defendants adopt the arguments they made in their
related appeal, Grutter v Bollinger, COA No. 01-1516, including their
statements of the applicable standards of review.

The student intervenors ask the Court to reverse the district court's
injunction and to remand the matter to the district court with instructions to
enter judgment in favor of the student intervenors and the defendants.

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 32(a)(7)(c) and Sixth Circuit Rule
32(a), the undersigned certifies that this brief complies with the type-volume
limitations of Sixth Circuit Rule 32(a)(7)(b).

The brief has been prepared in proportional typeface using Times
New Roman 14 point.

Exclusive of the portions of the brief exempted by Sixth Circuit Rule
32(a)(7)(R)(iii), the brief contains 330 words. If the Court so requests, the
undersigned will provide an electronic version of the brief and/or a copy of
the word or line printout.

The undersigned understands a material misrepresentation in
completing this certificate or circumvention of the type volume limits in
Sixth Circuit Rule 32(A)(7), may result in the Court's striking the brief and
imposing sanctions against the person signing the brief.

Defendant intervenors, pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 28(d), hereby
designate the materials identified in their appendix designations in Grutter v
Bollinger, COA No. 01-1516 as materials to be included in the joint appendix.

I hereby certify that on July 26, 2001, I served one copy of the
attached Proof Brief of Defendant-Intervenors-Appellees on the following
by regular United States mail: