|
Grutter v. Bollinger—U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Mr. Kolbo, you have two minutes remaining. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF KIRK KOLBO ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS THE WITNESS: Thank you, if I may follow-up on the last question. Counsel's answer to the last couple of questions, I think, really crystallizes the difference between their position and ours. The University of Michigan sees this as a question of group rights. There are rights on the part of minorities. And there are rights -- there are rights on the part of whites and Asians and other -- other groups. We see it very differently. The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not racial groups. The Bakke case opening up 16 spaces in the class when that system was struck down meant that about 2,500 15 students, 2,500 to 3,000 students who had previously been discriminated against now had an opportunity to compete for those seats. So it seems to me the question is not answered by how many have been discriminated against. The question is whether in fact discrimination is occurring against the individual and it certainly is in this particular case. Counsel was asked some questions about the open- ended nature of the policy at issue here. And I think it's very critical that we understand that if the interests that they are asserting here to be compelling is upheld as compelling by this Court, we have in fact the first indefinite, ongoing, unlimited compelling interest. The Court previously has confined its analysis to remedying -- remedying identified discrimination. A remedy based on societal discrimination or a role-model theory for example in Wygant. A couple of the reasons that the Court struck down those rationals was because they were so unlimited, so amorphous, indefinite with respect to time. That certainly is the case with the interest that is being urged here today. And it seems to me that that is -- it becomes very clear in the University's argument that what they've 15 done -- and they didn't argue so much this in the lower court, but they made it very clear that their justification for the preferences is based in effect on remedying societal discrimination. Their argument and their briefs and in this Court has been that when the day comes, someday and maybe it will come someday, we hope that it will, that someday that we will be able to stop using race for these purposes. And the opinion that accepted that rational it seems to me would be a dramatic step backward from this Court's precedents which rejected the notion that something as amorphous as societal discrimination would be sufficient. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Thank you Mr. Kolbo. The case is submitted. This excerpted transcript of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger was recorded by the Alderson Reporting Co. "Transcripts" Table of Contents | Next transcript excerpt
|