IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
________________________________ BARBARA GRUTTER
Plaintiff, v.
LEE BOLLINGER, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 97-75928
)
) Hon. Bernard Friedman
)
) Hon. Virginia Morgan
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
John H. Pickering
John Payton
Jane Sherburne
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
2445 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 663-6000ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Philip J. Kessler, P15921
Leonard M. Niehoff, P36695
BUTZEL LONG
350 South Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(734) 213-3625
DATE: May 3, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED.........................................................................iii
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES..............................................................................iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................v
INDEX OF EXHIBITS....................................................................................xi
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS......................................................4
1. The Faculty Admissions Policy...................................................5 a. General Objectives.......................................................7 b. Grades, Test Scores, and Their Limitations.................................7 c. Treating Each Applicant as an Individual......................................9 d. The Role of Racial and Ethnic Diversity.....................................11 2. The Benefits of Diversity..............................................................12 3. The Admissions Process: Implementing the Admissions Policy.....................17 a. File-By-File Review.............................................18 b. "A Single Though Important Element"......................................20 c. The Data...................................................................21 ARGUMENT................................................................................................23
I. CONTROLLING PRECEDENT PERMITS THE
COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATION OF RACE IN LAW
SCHOOL ADMISSIONS...............................................................23 A. "A Properly Devised Admissions Program Involving
The Competitive Consideration of Race and Ethnic
Origin" Is Constitutional...........................................................24 B. Bakke's Three Principles..........................................................26 1. Diversity as a Compelling Interest.......................................27 2. A Broad Sense of Diversity: Race As One
Of Many Factors.............................................32 3. Bakke's Two Limitations: Quotas and Qualifications..........32 a. Fixed Racial Quotas Are Prohibited.................................33 b. Only Qualified Applicants.................................................35 C. Bakke Is Binding Precedent.....................................................37 II. THE LAW SCHOOL COMPLIES WITH THE BAKKE
STANDARD...................................................................................41 III. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY DEFENSE...............................................................49 IV. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES CLAIMS UNDER TITLE
VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT................................................57 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................57
ii
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims because the undisputed factual record shows that the admissions practices of the University of Michigan Law School -- which involve the "competitive consideration of race" as a "single though important factor" in order to achieve the benefits of a diverse student body -- satisfy the standards set out in Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). 2. Whether the individual University and Law School officials who are sued for damages in their individual capacities are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' damages claims because the undisputed record demonstrates that they have not violated Plaintiffs' "clearly established constitutional rights," and therefore enjoy a qualified immunity from suit under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). 3. Whether the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan is entitled to summary judgment on Plainitffs' damages claims brought under Title VI because it would not have been "obvious" to the Board of Regents that, by accepting federal funds, it was subjecting itself to liability in damages on account of an admissions system that complies fully with Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
iii
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983).
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Adams v. Metiva,
31 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................52 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe�a,
515 U.S. 200 (1995) .........................................................................27, 39 Agostini v. Felton,
521 U.S. 203 (1997)................................................................................41 Ambach v. Norwick,
441 U.S. 68 (1979)..................................................................................24 Anderson v. Creighton,
483 U.S. 635 (1987)................................................................................50 Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes,
118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998)............................................................................36 Bloch v. Ribar,
156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998)..................................................................50 Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico,
457 U.S. (1982).......................................................................................24 Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954)..........................................................................14, 24 Buckner v. Kilgore,
36 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................52 Cameron v. Seitz,
38 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................50 City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.,
109 S. Ct. 706 (1989)........................................................................27, 40 Conn v. Gabbert,
No. 97-1802, 1999 WL 181181 (U.S. Apr 5, 1999)................................50
v
Crawford-El v. Britton,
118 S. Ct. 1584 (1998)............................................................................51 Davis v. Halpern,
768 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)..........................................................38 Dickerson v. McClellan,
101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1996).........................................................50, 52 Estate of Dietrich v. Burrows,
167 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 1999)...............................................................50 Estate of Ritter v. University of Michigan,
851 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1988)..................................................................54 Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools,
503 U.S. 60 (1992)............................................................................54, 55 Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf,
142 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 1998)..................................................................55 Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District,
118 S. Ct. 1989 (1998)...............................................................54, 55, 56 Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission,
463 U.S. 582 (1983)................................................................................55 Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800 (1982)..........................................................................50, 51 Healy v. James,
408 U.S. 169 (1972)................................................................................30 Hohn v. United States,
118 S. Ct. 1969 (1998)...........................................................................40 Hopwood v. State of Texas,
78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)........................................................38, 40, 53 Interstate Consolidated Street Railway co. v. Massachusetts,
207 U.S. (1907).......................................................................................23
vi
Jacobson v. Cincinnati Board of Education,
961 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1992)............................................................36, 38 Johnson v. Transportation Agency,
480 U.S. 616 (1987)................................................................................37 Keyishian v. Board of Regents,
385 U.S. 589 (1967)......................................................................2, 29, 30 Marks v. United States,
430 U.S. 188 (1977)..........................................................................26, 39 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education,
339 U.S. 637 (1950)................................................................................66 Marsh v. Arn,
937 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1991)................................................................66 Mumford v. Zieba,
4 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1993)......................................................................52 Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Seiter,
858 F.2d 1171 (6th Cir. 1988)................................................................52 Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education,
706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983)............................................................37, 38 Parate v. Isibor,
868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989)..................................................................36 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
451 U.S. 1 (1981)....................................................................................55 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978)........................................................................passim Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing,
474 U.S. 214 (1985)......................................................................2, 36, 54 Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights,
955 F.2d 1092 (6th Cir. 1992)................................................................52
vii
Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.,
490 U.S. 477 (1989)...............................................................................41 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia,
515 U.S. 819 (1995).....................................................................3, 30, 31 Russo v. City of Cincinnati,
953 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992)...............................................................50 Rust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 173 (1991)...............................................................................31 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44 (1996).................................................................................54 Smith v. University of Washington Law School,
2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (W.D. Wash. 1998).................................................38 Smith v. University of Washington Law School,
No. C97-335Z (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 1999)....................................39, 40 State Oil Company v. Kahn,
118 S. Ct. 275 (1997).............................................................................40 Sweatt v. Painter,
339 U.S. 629 (1950)...........................................................................3, 28 Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234 (1957).....................................................................2, 29, 36 Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron,
40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1994)...................................................................39 United States v. Lanier,
520 U.S. 259 (1997)...............................................................................56 United States v. Ovalle,
136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir. 1998)...............................................................38 United States v. Paradise,
480 U.S. 149 (1987)...............................................................................35
viii
University and Community College System v. Farmer,
930 P.2d 730 (Nev. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1186 (1998).........38 Wessmann v. Gittens,
160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998).................................................................38 Winkes v. Brown University,
747 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1984).................................................................38 Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education,
476 U.S. 267 (1986)...............................................................................37
STATUTES Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. � 2000d..................passim
Mich. Const., art. 8 (1963).............................................................................36
ARTICLES Akhil Reed Amar and Neal Kumar Katyal, Bakke's Fate, UCLA L. Rev.
1745 (1996).......................................................................................27, 53 Nat Hentoff, A Challenge to Bill Lann Lee, The Village Voice,
Jan. 13, 1998..........................................................................................51 Deborah C. Malamud, Affirmative Action, Diversity, and the Black Middle
Class , 68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 939 (1996)...................................................53Peter Schmidt, U. of Michigan Turns to Scholars to Bolster Its Defense
of Affirmative Action , Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 2, 1999.....16Cass R. Sunstein, Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided,
110 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1996)....................................................................53 Jaimie Winkler, Expert Witness Discusses Diversity, Michigan Daily,
Mar. 18, 1999.........................................................................................16 Kate Zernike, Affirmative Action Embattled Handbooks Encourage Students'
Suits , Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 1999........................................................51
ix
MISCELLANEOUS 59 Fed. Reg. 8761 (1994)................................................................................52
x
INDEX OF EXHIBITS Volume 1: Documents and Materials */
Exhibit Description
A.
University of Michigan Law School Bulletin: 1995-1997 (Deposition Exhibit 7).
B.
Law School Admissions Office: Daily Summary of Applicant Status ("Daily Report") (Deposition Exhibit 10).
C.
University of Michigan Law School Bulletin: 1997-199 (Deposition Exhibit 8).
D.
Law School Admissions Policy (Deposition Exhibit 4).
E.
Letter, dated December 8, 1997, from Jeffrey S. Lehman (Deposition Exhibit 59).
F.
"The Gospel According To Dennis" (Deposition Exhibit 5).
G.
Tables 5 and 6 of Expert Report submitted by plaintiff's expert, Kinley Larntz.
H.
Smith v. University of Washington Law School, No. C97-335Z (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 1999)
I.
Law School Announcement: 1988-89 (Deposition Exhibit 55).
J.
Standard 212 (Deposition Exhibit 84).
K.
American Bar Association Report on the University of Michigan Law School: February 9-12, 1992 (p. 38) (Deposition Exhibit 60).
L.
Memorandum from Don Regan (Deposition Exhibit 32).
M.
Letter, dated August 16, 1992, from Edward H. Cooper to James P. White (included in Deposition Exhibit 61).
xi
N.
Report of Kinley Larntz, plaintiff's expert (p. 9); charts produced by Larntz (Deposition Exhibit 68).
O.
The University of Michigan Law School Admissions Office Grid of LSAT & GPA (Deposition Exhibit 15).
P.
ABA Standards For Approval of Law Schools (Deposition Exhibit 30).
Q.
Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 1994 Handbook (Deposition Exhibit 31).
Volume 2: Deposition Excerpts **/
Deponent Deposition date
Lee Bollinger
February 9, 1999Susan Eklund June 2, 1998 Donald Herzog August 26, 1998 Kinley Larntz February 2, 1999 Jeffrey Lehman January 21, 1999 Richard Lempert November 5, 1998 Alissa Leonard November 2, 1998 Marcea Metzler February 5, 1999 Erica Munzel June 1, 1998 Stephen Raudenbush March 9, 1999 Donald Regan August 27, 1998 Dennis Shields December 7, 1998 Allan Stillwagon November 6, 1998 Theodore Shaw February 3, 1999 Jean Wong July 21, 1998
xii
Volume 3: Expert Witness Reports Expert Witness
Derek Bok
Albert Camarillo
Eric Foner
Patricia Gurin
Stephen Raudenbush (with Supplemental Report)
Claude Steele
Thomas Sugrue
Kent Syverud
Robert Webster
______________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES:
*/Certain of the documents included in Volume 1 of the Appendix were designated by defendants as confidential pursuant to the Unopposed Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidentiality, entered May 28, 1998. Pursuant to � 5 of that Order, defendants waive their confidential designations for any materials included in the Appendix.
**/Some of the deposition testimony included in Volume 2 of the Appendix was designated as confidential pursuant to the Unopposed Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidentiality, entered May 28, 1998. Pursuant to � 5 of that Order, defendants waive their confidential designations for any materials included in the Appendix.
|
|