In Grutter v. Bollinger, why did the Court hold that race could be used as a factor in University of Michigan admissions?

In Grutter v. Bollinger, why did the Court hold that race could be used as a factor in University of Michigan admissions?

• A. It was unconstitutional to consider race at all.
• B. Race could be used as a factor only if quotas were avoided and it was narrowly tailored.
• C. Race must be the primary criterion used in admissions.
• D. Race could be used only in undergraduate programs.

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is that using race in college admissions can be constitutional if it is part of a narrowly tailored, individualized review rather than a quota system. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race as one factor among many in a holistic admissions process to achieve a diverse student body. The Court emphasized two key points: diversity provides educational benefits that justify considering race, and the approach must be narrowly tailored to that goal, with no fixed quotas or points system and with race playing a limited, non-determinative role. Because the policy met those conditions, race could be used as a factor.

The idea being tested is that using race in college admissions can be constitutional if it is part of a narrowly tailored, individualized review rather than a quota system. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race as one factor among many in a holistic admissions process to achieve a diverse student body. The Court emphasized two key points: diversity provides educational benefits that justify considering race, and the approach must be narrowly tailored to that goal, with no fixed quotas or points system and with race playing a limited, non-determinative role. Because the policy met those conditions, race could be used as a factor.