1. Gratz v. Bollinger A Supreme Court Case
© 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA
All rights reserved.

2. Making sure that all people are treated equally under the law is important in our country. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided many cases to improve the treatment and equal protection of women, people of different races and ethnic groups, and people with different physical and mental abilities.
Cases continue to come before the Supreme Court that raise complicated questions about equality.
On Slide: Making sure... + stick people graphic.
Click 1: Cases continue…
Click 2: Today, you are… + court graphic.
Click to next slide.
Today, you are going to take the roles of Supreme Court justices and attorneys to hear an equal protection case. This case is about a college accepting or denying student admissions based on race.

3. To prepare for the case, you will need some background about a couple of other equal protection cases that were decided.
In 1978 the Supreme Court decided the case of California v. Bakke. Bakke, a Caucasian student, claimed the University’s admissions policy violated the 14th Amendment.
In this case, the University of California argued they were concerned that there were very few African American, Mexican American or disadvantaged students in its medical school.
On slide: To prepare…
Click 1: Rest of text + graphics.
Click to next slide.
Notes: California v. Bakke (1978) was about the UC Davis medical school holding spaces for minority students.

4. To make sure that more minority and disadvantaged students were accepted, the university set up a special admissions program. The medical school saved some slots that only minority or disadvantaged students could apply for.
On slide: All text and graphics.
Click to next slide.
Special Applications
Everyone Else

5. The Supreme Court ruled that having a special admissions program based on race was unconstitutional under the
14th Amendment
“…No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges… of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person…the equal protection of the laws.”
On slide: The Supreme Court ruled…
Click 1: 14th Amendment.
Click 2: “…No state…
Ensure that the students understand why the court found the policy unconstitutional.
Click to next slide.

6. The court decided that schools cannot accept or deny students based ONLY on race or ethnicity. Everyone has to have an equal shot at getting in.
But the court also said that having diverse student populations in our universities and colleges is very important to our democracy.
Universities should do their best to have students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, but they must do it without violating the Constitution.
On slide: The court decided… + graphic.
Click 1: But the court also said…
Click 2: Universities should do…
Ask: Why do you think the court said that it is important for universities to have students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds? (To ensure diversity in professions like law, medicine, etc. and to promote diverse points of view and tolerance among college students.)
Do you think it is important? Why or why not?
Click to next slide.

7. For the last 25 years, colleges throughout the country designed their admissions programs based on the Bakke decision.
On slide: All text and graphics.
Click to next slide.

8. In 2003, two cases came before the Supreme Court dealing with college admissions. Both cases were about admissions at the University of Michigan.
In the first case, Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter applied to the University of Michigan’s law school. Grutter was Caucasian and had a high grade-point average and high test scores.
Grutter was not accepted, but other students with lower grades and test scores were. She took the director of admissions to court.
On slide: Purple background.
Click 1: In 2003…
Click 2: In the first case…
Click 3: Grutter was not accepted… + graphic.
Click to next slide.

9. The university argued that:
Having students from diverse backgrounds is important to providing a good law school education to all of their students.
The law school looks for students who are most likely to succeed and contribute different ideas and experiences. Race or ethnicity is only one of the factors that is considered a plus.
On slide: The university argued… + graphic.
Click 1: Having students from diverse…
Click 2: The law school looks for…
Click 3: The law school also values…
Click 4: Every qualified…
Click to next slide.
The law school also values other forms of diversity, including life experiences of individuals.
Every qualified applicant is judged on an individual basis.

10. The Supreme Court agreed with the university.
The court held that the law school’s admission program did not violate the 14th Amendment.
On slide: The Supreme Court agreed…
Click 1: Photo + The court held…
Click 2: In the second case…
You may need to explain the difference between the law school, and the undergraduate program at Michigan. The Literature, Science, and Arts program was Michigan’s “liberal arts” program. Middle school students may not understand the difference between a graduate school and the general undergraduate program.
Click to next slide.
In the second case, Gratz v. Bollinger, two students, both Caucasian, applied to get into the University of Michigan’s Undergraduate program. Both were high school graduates with good test scores and grade-point averages.

11. leadership and high school activities,
The university had a system for trying to ensure a racially and ethnically diverse student body.
The admissions department received over 13,000 applications each year, and could accept under 4,000 students. Each application was read and scored using a mathematical system.
The system awarded points to applicants based on many factors including...
test scores,
high school grades,
leadership and high school activities,
On slide: The university had a system…
Click 1: The admissions department… + graphic.
Click 2: The system awarded…
Click 3: test scores,
Click 4: high school grades,
Click 5: leadership…
Click 6: and ethnicity/race.
Click 7: Every African-American….
Click to next slide.
Notes: 20 points were automatically awarded to applications from people of those three groups. A prospective student athlete could earn 20 points, as could an economically disadvantaged student. No applicant could be awarded the 20 extra points in more than one category. In other words, an African-American athlete would only qualify for 20 points total.
and ethnicity/race.
Every African-American, Hispanic, and Native American application automatically got 20 points.

12. You are going to participate in this Supreme Court case.
Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher did not have enough points for admission, but if they had received the points given to the three minority groups, they would have been accepted.
They took the admissions director to court, and the case ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.
You are going to participate in this Supreme Court case.
On slide: Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher… + graphic +
They took the admissions...
Click 1: You are going…
Click to next slide.

13. The question before the court:
Does the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences violate the 14th Amendment?
On slide: The question before the court… + graphic.
Click 1: Does the University…
Click to next slide.

14. Attorneys for the students presented this argument:
Both sides presented oral arguments and briefs to the appeals courts.
Attorneys for the students presented this argument:
The admissions policy is a violation of the 14th Amendment because it does not treat all students equally.
The students were not as competitive as others based on race or ethnicity. Minority students were more competitive because they got extra points.
The students were denied the opportunity to compete for admissions on an equal basis.
On slide: Both sides presented…
Attorneys for… + graphic.
Click 1: The admissions policy…
Click 2: The students were not…
Click 3: The students were denied…
Ensure that the students understand each argument.
Click to next slide.

15. The University of Michigan’s lawyers presented this argument to the appeals court:
The system makes it more fair for all students to have a chance to attend this school, even those who did not have the same opportunities earlier in life and in high school as others.
The university has a right to ensure that its student body is diverse. It is important to the quality of education for all students.
Though the system gives points to certain racial and ethnic groups, it also gives the same amount of points to athletes or disadvantaged students.
On slide: The University of Michigan…
Click 1: The system makes…
Click 2: The university has a right…
Click 3: Though the system gives…
Ensure that the students understand each argument.
Click to next slide.

16. You will take the roles of:
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the students (Gratz).
On slide: You will take...
Click 1: Justices… + graphic.
Click 2: Attorneys for the students… + graphic.
Click 3: Attorneys for university. + graphic.
PAUSE to get students into groups.
1. Divide the class into three sections. Assign each section one of the roles:
Justices
Attorneys for the students (Gratz)
Attorneys for the university (Bollinger)
2. Distribute Handout 1 to each student and explain that each group will work together to prepare to present the case of Gratz v. Bollinger.
Click to next slide.
Attorneys for the university.

17. Decide who will represent your group to perform the moot court.
To prepare for the case...
Attorneys for the students: Create arguments to convince the justices that the admission policy is not fair to Gratz and Hamacher or other students who are not African-American, Hispanic, or Native American.
Attorneys for University of Michigan: Create arguments to convince the court that the admissions system is fair and necessary to provide a diverse student population.
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: Create at least three questions to ask each side to help you determine the case.
On slide: All text.
PAUSE to assign tasks:
1. As you present the instructions for each group, ask the students if they have questions.
2. Review the questions before the court and remind students that the case should focus on these issues.
3. Tell the students how much time they have to prepare their arguments and questions. Circulate among the groups and help them prepare.
When the groups are almost finished preparing, click to next slide.
Decide who will represent your group to perform the moot court.

18. After the justices have decided, click to next slide.
Rules for the Oral Argument
1. Attorneys for the students (Gratz) will present first.
2. Attorneys for the University of Michigan (Bollinger)
will present second.
3. Justices will ask questions of both sides during the arguments.
The Justices’ Decision
1. After oral arguments, the justices meet and discuss the case.
2. Then they vote.
3. The justices will explain the reasons for the decision.
On slide: All text.
PAUSE to provide final preparation time (3 minutes) and conduct moot courts.
1. After the students have had time to prepare, present the Rules for Oral Argument.
2. Explain that the attorneys for the students present first because they are the party appealing the case from the lower court.
3. Have each side choose two or three people to make its presentation. Give each side a set amount of time for the presentation, e.g. 2 minutes. Don’t count as part of the 2 minutes the time each takes to answer questions from judges.
3. After the oral arguments, ask the justices to discuss, out loud, their thoughts about the case. Explain that this is always done behind closed doors, but that you are interested in hearing their rationale.
4. Ask the justices to take a vote.
5. Ask the rest of the class if they agree or disagree with the decision. Ask students to give reasons why.
After the justices have decided, click to next slide.

19. The Supreme Court Decision: Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003
We conclude...that the University’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy...violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Rehnquist wrote the court’s majority decision. He talked about the difference between Michigan’s Law School case and the Gratz case.
The law school case was upheld because each student who applied was considered individually. Everyone had a more equal chance of getting in based on his or her individual strengths. Being a member of a particular racial or ethnic group might be a plus, but other life experiences could be just as important.
On slide: All text.
1. Share the actual Supreme Court decision with the class.
Click to next slide.

20. From The Record, University of Michigan’s newspaper, 9/2003
In the Gratz case, the undergraduate admissions system automatically gave preference to three minority groups based only on race and ethnicity.
The system’s mathematical formula did not allow for individual strengths and weaknesses.
The U.S. Supreme Court found the system unconstitutional because it did not treat individuals from different racial and ethnic groups equally.
From The Record, University of Michigan’s newspaper, 9/2003
A new process for undergraduate admissions will gather more information about student applicants and include multiple levels of highly individualized review. The new process, announced Aug. 28, was developed over the past several weeks in order to comply with the June 23 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States.
On slide: All text except newspaper quote.
Click 1: From The Record… + boxed quotation.
1. Compare the arguments the students made with the actual decision.
2. Point out the connections between the Constitution and amendments that were written a long time ago, Supreme Court decisions, and how these things can impact our lives today.
3. Congratulate the students on their participation.

21. © 2003 Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA
Gratz v. Bollinger: A Supreme Court Case
Designed by Marshall Croddy
Written by Keri Doggett
Graphic Design and Production by Keri Doggett
Special thanks to John Kronstadt, member of CRF Board of Directors, for inspiration and input.
© Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, CA
All rights reserved..