| The
ISSUES
before the court: |
|
The
charges, the principal question to be decided, the pertinent legal
provisions |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DOCUMENTS
|
| |
|
| Gratz
: Racially
Disparate Probabilities
of Admission |
| |
Computed
from 1995 undergraduate admissions data provided by the University
of Michigan to the Center for Equal Opportunity for its report,
"Racial Preferences in Michigan Higher Education." |
|
|
|
Gratz : A Summary
of the Facts |
|
Excerpted
from the Opinion of Judge Patrick Duggan in Gratz v. Bollinger,
(Case # 97-CV-75231-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, December 13, 2000. |
| |
|
|
Grutter : Racially Disparate Rates
of Admission |
| |
Compiled
from the Powerpoint presentation by Plaintiff's statistician, Dr.
Kinley Larntz, in Grutter v. Bollinger, (Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT)
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
January 7, 2001. |
|
|
| Grutter
: Racially Disparate Odds
of Admission |
|
Excerpted
from the cross-examination of Plaintiff's statistician by
Stuart Delery, counsel for the Defendant, in Grutter v. Bollinger
(Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, January 17, 2001. |
| |
|
| Grutter
: A Summary
of the Facts |
|
Excerpted
from the Opinion of Judge Bernard Friedman in Grutter v. Bollinger,
(Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, March 27, 2001. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
BRIEFS
OF THE PARTIES
|
|
|
| The
Petitioner
in Gratz v. Bollinger argues that the pursuit of diversity
cannot be a compelling interest under constitutional law, because
there are no principled limits on its scope or duration. |
|
Excerpted
from the Initial Brief of Counsel for Petitioner, Jennifer Gratz |
|
|
| The Respondent
in Gratz v. Bollinger argues that the University's undergraduate
college must use race-based admissions in order to obtain a meaningful
level of racial and ethnic diversity in its student body. |
| |
Excerpted
from the Reply Brief of Counsel for Respondent, the University of
Michigan |
|
|
| The
Petitioner
in Grutter v. Bollinger argues that the Law School's use
of race is a fundamental departure from the guarantee of governmental
nondiscrimination, unjustified by any compelling interest in "academic
freedom" or "diversity." |
|
Excerpted
from the Initial Brief of Counsel for Petitioner, Barbara Grutter |
|
|
| The
Respondent
in Grutter v. Bollinger argues that racial diversity, which
is essential to the Law School's educational mission, requires a
limited and individualized consideration of race in admissions. |
| |
Excerpted
from the Reply Brief of Counsel for Respondent, the University of
Michigan |
| |
| |
|
BRIEFS
OF AMICI CURIAE
|
|
Pro Gratz
and Grutter -- The
Center for Equal Opportunity et al. argue that the
Supreme Court should address, and reject, the "diversity"
justification for racial and ethnic discrimination.
|
| |
Excerpted
from the Brief for the CEO et al. as amici curiae
supporting Petitioners |
| |
|
| Pro
Gratz - The National
Association of Scholars argues that the University's research
fails to show that increases in student racial diversity yield educational
benefits |
| |
Excerpted
from the Brief for the NAS as amicus curiae supporting Petitioner. |
| |
|
| Pro
Grutter -- The United
States argues that Michigan's race-based admissions
policy is unnecessary and unconstitutional, since race-neutral alternatives
are available to maintain minority enrollment. |
| |
Excerpted from the Brief for the
United States as amicus curiae supporting Petitioner |
| |
|
| Pro
Grutter -- The National
Association of Scholars argues that racial preference in
public university admissions is opposed by most faculty and students,
and by most minority group members. |
| |
Excerpted
from the Brief for the NAS as amicus curiae supporting Petitioner |
| |
|
| Pro
the University of Michigan -- Lt.
Gen. Julius Becton, Jr. et al. argue that the government's
compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps
requires race-conscious policies in the armed forces, and in the
universities. |
|
Excerpted
from a Brief representing certain retired generals and admirals,
joined by other notables, as amici curiae supporting Respondent |
| |
|
| Pro
the University of Michigan -- Leading
American Businesses argue that the pursuit of diversity in higher
education is a compelling state interest, because it prepares all
students to succeed in and enhance the global community. |
| |
Excerpted
from a Brief representing sixty-five leading American businesses,
as amici curiae supporting Respondent. |
| |
|
|
|
| Pro
the University of Michigan – Glenn
C. Loury et al. argue that percentage plans, devised to replace
race-conscious admissions, have not been notably successful in promoting
diversity, and would do worse in Michigan. |
|
Excerpted
from a Brief representing seven social scientists as amici curiae
supporting Respondent |
| |
|
| Pro
the University of Michigan -- The American
Psychological Association argues that racial diversity in higher
education helps to combat racial prejudice and discrimination. |
|
Excerpted
from a Brief representing the APA as amicus curiae supporting
Respondent |
| |
| |
|
THE
ORAL ARGUMENTS
|
| |
Grutter
v. Bollinger, 10:00 a.m., April 1, 2003 (Complete
transcript with commentary.) Kirk O. Kolbo, Esq., in behalf
of Barbara Grutter.
Theodore B. Olson, United States Solicitor General, in support of
Grutter.
Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq., in behalf of the University of Michigan
Law School. |
| |
Gratz
v. Bollinger, 11:00 a.m., April 1, 2003 (Complete
transcript with commentary.) Kirk O. Kolbo, Esq., in behalf
of Jennifer Gratz & Patrick Hamacher.
Theodore B. Olson, United States Solicitor General, in support of
Gratz & Hamacher. John Payton, Esq., in behalf of the University
of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts. |
| |
|
|