Grutter v. Bollinger also emphasizes that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify what type of consideration in admissions?

Grutter v. Bollinger also emphasizes that diversity is a compelling interest that can justify what type of consideration in admissions?

• A. Quotas
• B. Race as the sole determinant
• C. Narrowly tailored consideration of race
• D. Excluding other factors altogether

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is that diversity can be a compelling interest that permits the use of race in admissions, but only in a narrowly tailored way. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court held that diversity is a compelling interest and that a law school could consider race as part of a holistic, individualized review rather than as a quota or as the sole determinant. The policy was designed to be flexible and to weigh many factors, so its use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. That’s why the best answer is narrowly tailored consideration of race as one factor among many. Quotas, using race as the sole determinant, or excluding other factors altogether would not meet that standard.

The idea being tested is that diversity can be a compelling interest that permits the use of race in admissions, but only in a narrowly tailored way. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court held that diversity is a compelling interest and that a law school could consider race as part of a holistic, individualized review rather than as a quota or as the sole determinant. The policy was designed to be flexible and to weigh many factors, so its use of race was narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. That’s why the best answer is narrowly tailored consideration of race as one factor among many. Quotas, using race as the sole determinant, or excluding other factors altogether would not meet that standard.