ADMISSIONS ON TRIAL The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, June 24, 2003-14
"insulat[e] each category of applicants with information available in the file, including the Law School's use of race in the admis- body was not compelling because "the have suffered." Id., at 310. Third, Justice
certain desired qualifications from compe- a personal statement, letters of recommen- sions process. Dennis Shields, Director of attainment of a racially diverse class ... Powell rejected an interest in "increasing
tition with all other applicants." Bakke, dation, and an essay describing the ways in Admissions when petitioner applied to the was not recognized as such by Bakke and is the number of physicians who will practice
supra, at 315 (opinion of Powell, J.). which the applicant will contribute to the Law School, testified that he did not direct not a remedy for past discrimination." Id., in communities currently underserved,"
Instead, it may consider race or ethnicity life and diversity of the Law School. Id., at his staff to admit a particular percentage or at 246a. The District Court went on to hold concluding that even if such an interest
only as a " 'plus' in a particular applicant's 83-84, 114-121. In reviewing an appli- number of minority students, but rather to that even if diversity were compelling, the could be compelling in some circmstances
file"; i.e., it must be "flexible enough to cant's file, admissions officials must con- consider an applicant's race along with all Law School had not narrowly tailored its the program under review was not "geared
consider all pertinent elements of diversity sider the applicant's undergraduate grade other factors. Id., at 206a. Shields testified use of race to further that interest. The Dis- to promote that goal." Id., at 306, 310.
in light of the particular qualifications of point average (GPA) and Law School that at the height of the admissions season, trict Court granted petitioner's request for Justice Powell approved the university s
each applicant, and to place them on the Admissions Test (LSAT) score because they he would frequently consult the so-called declaratory relief and enjoined the Law use of race to further only one interest: "the
same footing for consideration, although are important (if imperfect) predictors of "daily reports" that kept track of the racial School from using race as a factor in its attainment of a diverse student body." Id.,
not necessarily according them the same academic success in law school. Id., at 112. and ethnic composition of the class (along admissions deci-sions. The Court of at 311. With the important proviso that
weight," id., at 317. It follows that universi- The policy stresses that "no applicant with other information such as residency Appeals entered a stay of the injunction "constitutional limitations protecting indi-
ties cannot establish quotas for members of should be admitted unless we expect that status and gender). Id., at 207a. This was pending appeal. vidual rights may not be disregarded," Jus-
certain racial or ethnic groups or put them applicant to do well enough to graduate done, Shields testified, to ensure that a crit- Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals tice Powell grounded his analysis in the
on separate admissions tracks. See id., at with no serious academic problems." Id., at ical mass of underrepresented minority stu- reversed the District Court's judgment and academic freedom that "long has been
315-316. The Law School's admissions 111. dents would be reached so as to realize the vacated the injunction. The Court of viewed as a special concern of the First
program, like the Harvard plan approved by The policy makes clear, however, that educational benefits of a diverse student Appeals first held that Justice Powell's Amendment." Id., at 312, 314. Justice Pow-
Justice Powell, satisfies these requirements. even the highest possible score does not body. Ibid. Shields stressed, however, that opinion in Bakke was binding precedent ell emphasized that nothing less than the
Moreover, the program is flexible enough guarantee admission to the Law School. Id., he did not seek to admit any particular establishing diversity as a compelling state "'nation's future depends upon leaders
to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as at 113. Nor does a low score automatically number or percentage of underrepresented interest. According to the Court of Appeals, trained through wide exposure' to the ideas
an individual and not in a way that makes disqualify an applicant. Ibid. Rather, the minority students. Ibid. Justice Powell's opinion with respect to and mores of students as diverse as this
race or ethnicity the defining feature of the policy requires admissions officials to look Erica Munzel, who succeeded Shields as diversity comprised the controlling ration- Nation of many peoples." Id., at 313 (quot-
application. See Bakke, supra, at 317 (opin- beyond grades and test scores to other cri- Director of Admissions, testified that ale for the judgment of this Court under the ing Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ.
ion of Powell, J.). The Law School engages teria that are important to the Law School's "'critical mass"' means "'meaningful num- analysis set forth in Marks v. United States, of State ofN. Y, 385 U. S. 589, 603 (1967)).
in a highly individualized, holistic review educational objectives. Id., at 114. So- bers"' or "'meaningful representation,"' 430 U. S. 188 (1977). The Court of Appeals In seeking the "right to select those stu-
of each applicant's file, giving serious con- called "'soft' variables" such as "the enthu- which she understood to mean a number also held that the Law School's use of race dents who will contribute the most to the
sideration to all the ways an applicant siasm of recommenders, the quality of the that encourages underrepresented minority was narrowly tailored because race was 'robust exchange of ideas,"' a university
might contribute to a di-verse educational undergraduate institution, the quality of the students to participate in the classroom and merely a "potential 'plus' factor" and seeks "to achieve a goal that is of para-
environment. There is no policy, either de applicant's essay, and the areas and diffi- not feel isolated. Id., at 208a-209a. Munzel because the Law School's program was mount importance in the fulfillment of its
jure or de facto, of automatic acceptance or culty of undergraduate course selection" stated there is no number, percentage, or "virtually identical" to the Harvard admis- mission." 438 U. S., at 313. Both "tradition
rejection based on any single "soft" vari- are all brought to bear in assessing an range of numbers or percentages that con- sions program described approvingly by and experience lend support to the view
able. Gratz v. Bollinger, ante, p. ___, dis- "applicant's likely contributions to the stitute critical mass. Id., at 209a. Munzel Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke that the contribution of diversity is substan-
tinguished. Also, the program adequately intellectual and social life of the institu- also asserted that she must consider the opinion. 288 F. 3d 732, 746, 749 (CA6 tial." Ibid.
ensures that all factors that may contribute tion." Ibid. race of applicants because a critical mass of 2002). Justice Powell was, however, careful to
to diversity are meaningfully considered The policy aspires to "achieve that diver- underrepresented minority students could Four dissenting judges would have held emphasize that in his view race "is only one
alongside race. Moreover, the Law School sity which has the potential to enrich every- not he enrolled if admissions decisions the Law School's use of race unconstitu- element in a range of factors a university
frequently accepts nonminority applicants one's education and thus make a law school were based primarily on undergraduate tional. Three of the dissenters, rejecting the properly may consider in attaining the goal
with grades and test scores lower than class stronger than the sum of its parts." GPAs and LSAT scores. Ibid. majority's Marks analysis, examined the of a heterogeneous student body." Id., at
underrepresented minority applicants (and Id., at 118. The policy does not restrict the The current Dean of the Law School, Jef- Law School's interest in student body diver- 314. For Justice Powell, "[i]t is not an inter-
other nonminority applicants) who are types of diversity contributions eligible for frey Lehman, also testified. Like the other sity on the merits and concluded it was not est in simple ethnic diversity, in which a
rejected. The Court rejects the argument "substantial weight" in the admissions Law School witnesses, Lehman did not compelling. The fourth dissenter, writing specified percentage of the student body is
that the Law School should have used other process, but instead recognizes "many pos- quantify critical mass in terms of numbers separately, found it unnecessary to decide in effect guaranteed to be members of
race-neutral means to obtain the education- sible bases for diversity admissions." Id., at or percentages. Id., at 21 la. He indicated whether diversity was a compelling interest selected ethnic groups," that can justify the
al benefits of student body diversity, e.g., a 118, 120. The policy does, however, reaf- that critical mass means numbers such that because, like the other dissenters, he use of race. Id., at 315. Rather, "[t]he diver-
lottery system or decreasing the emphasis firm the Law School's long-standing com- underrepresented minority students do not believed that the Law School's use of race sity that furthers a compelling state interest
on GPA and LSAT scores. Narrow tailoring mitment to "one particular type of feel isolated or like spokespersons for their was not narrowly tailored to further that encompasses a far broader array of qualifi-
does not require exhaustion of every con- diversity," that is, "racial and ethnic diver- race. Ibid. When asked about the extent to interest. cations and characteristics of which racial
ceivable race-neutral alternative or mandate sity with special reference to the inclusion which race is considered in admissions, We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1043 or ethnic origin is but a single though
that a university choose between maintain- of students from groups which have been Lehman testified that it varies from one (2002), to resolve the disagreement among important element." Ibid.
ing a reputation for excellence or fulfilling historically discriminated against, like applicant to another. Ibid. In some cases, the Courts of Appeals on a question of In the wake of our fractured decision in
a commitment to provide educational African-Americans, Hispanics and Native according to Lehman's testimony, an appli- national importance: Whether diversity is a Bakke, courts have struggled to discern
opportunities to mem-bers of all racial Americans, who without this commitment cant's race may play no role, while in others compelling interest that can justify the nar- whether Justice Powell's diversity rationale,
groups. See, e.g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of might not be represented in our student it may be a "'determinative"' factor. Ibid. rowly tailored use of race in selecting set forth in part of the opinion joined by no
Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6. The Court is body in meaningful numbers." Id., at 120. The District Court heard extensive testi- applicants for admission to public universi- other Justice, is nonetheless binding prece-
satisfied that the Law School ade-quately By enrolling a "'critical mass' of [under- mony from Professor Richard Lempert, ties. Compare Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F. 3d dent under Marks. In that case, we
considered the available alternatives. The represented] minority students," the Law who chaired the faculty committee that 932 (CA5 1996) (Hopwood I ) (holding that explained that "[w]hen a fragmented Court
Court is also satisfied that, in the context of School seeks to "ensur[e] their ability to drafted the 1992 policy. Lempert empha- diversity is not a compelling state interest), decides a case and no single rationale
individualized consideration of the possible make unique contributions to the character sized that the Law School seeks students with Smith v. University of Wash. Law explaining the result enjoys the assent of
diversity contributions of each applicant, of the Law School." Id., at 120-121. with diverse interests and backgrounds to School, 233 F. 3d 1188 (CA9 2000) (hold- five Justices, the holding of the Court may
the Law School's race-conscious admis- The policy does not define diversity enhance classroom discussion and the edu- ing that it is). be viewed as that position taken by those
sions program does not unduly harm non- "solely in terms of racial and ethnic status." cational experience both inside and outside II A Members who concurred in the judgments
minority applicants. Finally, race-conscious Id., at 121. Nor is the policy "insensitive to the classroom. Id., at 213a. When asked We last addressed the use of race in pub- on the narrowest grounds." 430 U. S., at
admissions policies must be limited in the competition among all students for about the policy's "'commitment to racial lic higher education over 25 years ago. In 193 (internal quotation marks and citation
time. The Court takes the Law School at its admission to the [L]aw [S]chool." Ibid. and ethnic diversity with special reference the landmark Bakke case, we reviewed a omitted). As the divergent opinions of the
word that it would like nothing better than Rather, the policy seeks to guide admis- to the inclusion of students from groups racial set-aside program that reserved 16 lower courts demonstrate, however, "[t]his
to find a race-neutral admissions formula sions officers in "producing classes both which have been historically discriminated out of 100 seats in a medical school class test is more easily stated than applied to the
and will terminate its use of racial prefer- diverse and academically outstanding, against,"' Lempert explained that this Ian- for members of certain minority groups. various opinions supporting the result in
ences as soon as practicable. The Court classes made up of students who promise to guage did not purport to remedy past dis- 438 U. S. 265 (1978). The decision pro- [Bakke]." Nichols v. United States, 511 U.
expects that 25 years from now, the use of continue the tradition of outstanding contri- crimination, but rather to include students duced six separate opinions, none of which S. 738, 745-746 (1994). Compare, e.g.,
racial preferences will no longer be neces- bution by Michigan Graduates to the legal who may bring to the Law School a per- commanded a majority of the Court. Four Johnson v. Board of Regents of Univ. of
sary to further the interest approved today. profession." Ibid. spective different from that of members of Justices would have upheld the program Ga., 263 F. 3d 1234 (CA1l 2001) (Justice
Pp. 21-31. B groups which have not been the victims of against all attack on the ground that the Powell's diversity rationale was not the
(e) Because the Law School's use of race Petitioner Barbara Grutter is a white such discrimination. Ibid. Lempert government can use race to "remedy disad- holding of the Court); Hopwood v. Texas,
in admissions decisions is not prohibited by Michigan resident who applied to the Law acknowledged that other groups, such as vantages cast on minorities by past racial 236 F. 3d 256, 274-275 (CA5 2000) (Hop
Equal Protection Clause, petitioner's statu- School in 1996 with a 3.8 grade point aver- Asians and Jews, have experienced discrim- prejudice." Id., at 325 (joint opinion of wood II ) (same); Hopwood I, 78 F. 3d 932
tory claims based on Title VI and §1981 age and 161 LSAT score. The Law School ination, but explained they were not men- Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun, (same), with Smith v. University of Wash.
also fail. See Bakke, supra, at 287 (opinion initially placed petitioner on a waiting list, tioned in the policy because individuals JJ., concurring in judgment in part and dis- Law School, 233 E 3d 1199 (Justice Pow-
of Powell, J.); General Building Contrac- but subsequently rejected her application. who are members of those groups were senting in part). Four other Justices avoided ell's opinion, including the diversity ration-
tors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. In December 1997, petitioner filed suit in already being admitted to the Law School the constitutional question altogether and ale, is controlling under Marks).
375, 389-391. Pp. 31-32. the United States District Court for the in significant numbers. Ibid. struck down the program on statutory We do not find it necessary to decide
288 F. 3d 732, affirmed. Eastern District of Michigan against the Kent Syverud was the final witness to grounds. Id., at 408 (opinion of STEVENS, whether Justice Powell's opinion is binding
Law School, the Regents of the University testify about the Law School's use of race J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Stewart and under Marks. It does not seem "useful to
JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR of Michigan, Lee Bollinger (Dean of the in admissions decisions. Syverud was a REHNQUIST, JJ., concurring in judgment pursue the Marks inquiry to the utmost log-
delivered the opinion of the Court, Law School from 1987 to 1994, and Presi- professor at the Law School when the 1992 in part and dissenting in part). Justice Pow- ical possibility when it has so obviously
in which JUSTICES JOHN PAUL dent of the University of Michigan from admissions policy was adopted and is now ell provided a fifth vote not only for invali- baffled and divided the lower courts that
STEVENS, DAVID SOUTER, RUTH 1996 to 2002), Jeffrey Lehman (Dean of Dean of Vanderbilt Law School. In addition dating the set-aside program, but also for have considered it." Nichols v. United
WADER INSBURG, and STEPHEN the Law School), and Dennis Shields to his testimony at trial, Syverud submitted reversing the state court's injunction States, supra, at 745-746. More important,
BR YER joined, and in which JUS- (Director of Admissions at the Law School several expert reports on the educational against any use of race whatsoever. The for the reasons set out below, today we
TICES ANTONIN SCALIA and from 1991 until 1998). Petitioner alleged benefits of diversity. Syverud's testimony only holding for the Court in Bakke was endorse Justice Powell's view that student
CL ARENCE THOMAS joined in part that respondents discriminated against her indicated that when a critical mass of that a "State has a substantial interest that body diversity is a compelling state interest
insofar as it is consistent with the on the basis of race in violation of the underrepresented minority students is pres- legitimately may be served by a properly that can justify the use of race in university
views expressed in Part VII of the Fourteenth Amendment; Title VI of the ent, racial stereotypes lose their force devised admissions program involving the admissions.
opinion of TH MAS. GINSBURG Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 because nonminority students learn there is competitive consideration of race and eth- B
filed a concurring opinion, in which U. S. C. §2000d; and Rev. Stat. § 1977, as no "'minority viewpoint"' but rather a vari- nic origin." Id., at 320. Thus, we reversed The Equal Protection Clause provides
R EYR joined. SCALIA filed an amended, 42 U. S. C. §g1981. ety of viewpoints among minority students. that part of the lower court's judgment that that no State shall "deny to any person
opinion concurring In part and dis- Petitioner further alleged that her appli- Id., at 215a. enjoined the university "from any consid- within its jurisdiction the equal protection
iniAn paring wi THOAS cation was rejected because the Law School Inan attempt to quantify the extent to eration of the race of any applicant." Ibid. of the laws." U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §2.
ngi ar nwhich T H OMA n uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving which the Law School actually considers Since this Court's splintered decision in Because the Fourteenth Amendment "pro-
joined. T 0 AS fled an opinion applicants who belong to certain minority race in making admissions decisions, the Bakke, Justice Powell's opinion announcing tect[s] persons, not groups," all "govern-
concurring in part and dissentingin groups "a significantly greater chance of parties introduced voluminous evidence at the judgment of the Court has served as the mental action based on race-a group
part, in which SCALIA joined as to admission than students with similar cre- trial. Relying on data obtained from the touchstone for constitutional analysis of classification long recognized as in most
Parts l-VII. CHIEF JUSTICE dentials from disfavored racial groups." Law School, petitioner's expert, Dr. Kinley race-conscious admissions policies. Public circumstances irrelevant and therefore pro-
WILLIAM Q E NUIST filed a dis- App. 33-34. Petitioner also alleged that Larntz, generated and analyzed "admis- and private universities across the Nation hibited-should be subjected to detailed
sentin opinion, in which SCALIA, respondents "had no compelling interest to sions grids" for the years in question have modeled their own admissions pro- judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, and justify their use of race in the admissions (1995-2000). These grids show the number grams on Justice Powell's views on permis- right to equal protection of the laws has not
THOMAS joined. KENNEDY filed a process." Id., at 34. Petitioner requested of applicants and the number of admittees sible race-conscious policies. See, e.g., been in-fringed." Adarand Constructors,
dissenting opinion. compensatory and punitive damages, an for all combinations of GPAs and LSAT Brief for Judith Areen et al. as Amici Curi- Inc. v. Pea, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995)
order requiring the Law School to offer her scores. Dr. Larntz made "'cell-by-cell" ae 12-13 (law school admissions programs (emphasis in original; internal quotation
admission, and an injunction prohibiting comparisons between applicants of differ- employ "methods designed from and based marks and citation omitted). We are a "free
Opinion of the Court the Law School from continuing to discim- ent races to determine whether a statistical- on Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke"); people whose institutions are founded upon
mnate on the basis of race. Id., at 36. Peti- ly significant relationship existed between Brief for Amherst College et al. as Amici the doctrine of equality." Loving v. Virginia,
I A tioner clearly has standing to bring this race and admission rates. He concluded that Curiae 27 ("After Bakke, each of the amici 388 U. S. 1, 11 (1967) (internal quotation
The Law School ranks among the lawsuit. Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associ- membership in certain minority groups "'is (and undoubtedly other selective colleges marks and citation omitted). It follows from
Nation's top law schools. It receives more ated Gen. Contractors ofAmerica v. Jack- an extremely strong factor in the decision and uni-versities as well) reviewed their that principle that "government may treat
than 3,500 applications each year for a sonville, 508 U. S. 656, 666 (1993). for acceptance,"' and that applicants from admissions procedures in light of Justice people differently because of their race
class of around 350 students. Seeking to The District Court granted petitioner's these minority groups "'are given an Powell's opinion ... and set sail according- only for the most.compelling reasons."
"admit a group of students who individual- motion for class certification and for bifur- extremely large allowance for admission"' ly"). We therefore discuss Justice Powell's Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea, 515 U.
ly and collectively are among the most cation of the trial into liability and damages as compared to applicants who are mem- opinion in some detail. S., at 227.
capable," the Law School looks for individ- phases. The class was defined as "'all per- bers of nonfavored groups. Id., at Justice Powell began by stating that We have held that all racial classifica-
uals with "substantial promise for success sons who (A) applied for and were not 218a-220a. Dr. Larntz conceded, however, "[t]he guarantee of equal protection cannot tions imposed by government "must be ana-
in law school" and "a strong likelihood of granted admission to the University of that race is not the predominant factor in mean one thing when applied to one indi- lyzed by a reviewing court under strict
succeeding in the practice of law and con- Michigan Law School for the academic the Law School's admissions calculus. 12 vidual and something else when applied to scrutiny." Ibid. This means that such classi-
tributing in diverse ways to the well-being years since (and including) 1995 until the Tr. 11-13 (Feb. 10, 2001). a person of another color. If both are not fications are constitutional only if they are
of others." App. 110. More broadly, the time that judgment is entered herein; and Dr. Stephen Raudenbush, the Law accorded the same protection, then it is not narrowly tailored to further compelling
Law School seeks "a mix of students with (B) were members of those racial or ethnic School's expert, focused on the predicted equal." Bakke, 438 U. S., at 289- 290. In governmental interests. "Absent searching
varying backgrounds and experiences who groups, including Caucasian, that Defen- effect of eliminating race as a factor in the Justice Powell's view, when governmental judicial inquiry into the justification for
will respect and learn from each other." dants treated less favorably in considering Law School's admission process. In Dr. decisions "touch upon an individual's race such race-based measures," we have no way
Ibid. In 1992, the dean of the Law School their applications for admission to the Law Raudenbush's view, a race-blind admissions or ethnic background, he is entitled to a to determine what "classifications are
charged a faculty committee with crafting a School."' App. to Pet. for Cert. 191a-192a. system would have a "'very dramatic,"' judicial determination that the burden he is 'benign' or 'remedial' and what classifi-
written admissions policy to implement The District Court heard oral argument negative effect on underrepresented minori- asked to bear on that basis is precisely tai- cations are in fact motivated by illegitimate
these goals. In particular, the Law School on the parties' cross-motions for summary ty admissions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 223a lored to serve a compelling governmental notions of racial inferiority or simple racial
sought to ensure that its efforts to achieve judgment on December 22, 2000. Taking He testified that in 2000, 35 percent of interest." Id., at 299. Under this exacting politics." Richmond v. J A. Croson Co., 488
student body diversity complied with this the motions under advisement, the District underrepresented minority applicants were standard, only one of the interests asserted U. S. 469, 493 (1989) (plurality opinion).
Court's most recent ruling on the use of Court indicated that it would decide as a admitted. Ibid. Dr. Raudenbush predicted by the university survived Justice Powell's We apply strict scrutiny to all racial classi-
race in university admissions. See Regents matter of law whether the Law School's that if race were not considered, only 10 scrutiny. fications to "'smoke out' illegitimate uses
of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 asserted interest in obtaining the education- percent of those applicants would have First, Justice Powell rejected an interest of race by assuring that [government] is
(1978). Upon the unanimous adoption of al benefits that flow from a diverse student been admitted. Ibid. Under this scenario, in "'reducing the historic deficit of tradi- pursuing a goal important enough to war-
the committee's report by the Law School body was compelling. The District Court underrepresented minority students would tionally disfavored minorities in medical rant use of a highly suspect tool." Ibid.
faculty, it became the Law School's official also indicated that it would conduct a bench have comprised 4 percent of the entering schools and in the medical profession"' as Strict scrutiny is not "strict in theory, but
admissions policy. trial on the extent to which race was a fac- class in 2000 instead of the actual figure of an unlawful interest in racial balancing. Id., fatal in fact." Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
The hallmark of that policy is its focus tor in the Law School's admissions deci- 14.5 percent. Ibid. at 306-307. Second, Justice Powell rejected Pea, supra, at 237 (internal quotation
on academic ability coupled with a flexible sions, and whether the Law School's In the end, the District Court concluded an interest in remedying societal discrimi- marks and citation omitted). Although all
assessment of applicants' talents, experi- consideration of race in admissions deci- that the Law School's use of race as a factor nation because such measures would risk governmental uses of race are subject to
ences, and potential "to contribute to the sions constituted a race-based double stan- in admissions decisions was unlawful. placing unnecessary burdens on innocent strict scrutiny, not all are invalidated by it.
learning of those around them." App. 111. dard. Applying strict scrutiny, the District Court third parties "who bear no responsibility As we have explained, "whenever the gov-
The policy requires admissions officials to During the 15-day bench trial, the parties determined that the Law School's asserted for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the ernment treats any person unequally
qvaluate each applicant based on all the introduced extensive evidence concerning interest in assembling a diverse student special admissions program are thought to because of his or her race, that person has