Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
More than 80 amicus briefs have been filed in the University of Michigan Law School case Grutter v. Bollinger. At least 67 of them side with the law school, and more than 15 argue on behalf of white applicant Barbara Grutter. Most of the briefs on both sides can be viewed at a special Web site set up by the University of Michigan: www.umich.edu/~urel/ admissions/legal/. A sampling of the briefs in the case follows. FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN American Bar Association Counsel of record: A.P. Carlton, ABA president. Quote: “Since 1980, the ABA, as the primary accrediting agency for law schools, has required all law schools to demonstrate ‘a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by qualified members of groups, notably racial and ethnic minorities, which have been victims of discrimination in various firms.’ It was not always so. Until 1943, the ABA excluded African-Americans from membership. … During this period the ABA, like much of society, was complicit in the pervasive exclusion of African-Americans from the legal system.” University of North Carolina School of Law Counsel of record: John Boger, UNC law professor. Quote: “Well aware of tragic lessons that our regional history has taught us, summoning all the passion we can muster, we inform the Court, as conscientious educators and regional leaders, that any abrupt end to race-conscious admissions threatens a return of de facto racial segregation to many public institutions of higher education throughout this state and region.” UCLA School of Law Students of Color Counsel of record: Sonia Mercado, Los Angeles practitioner. Quote: “These students are in a unique position to comment on this case because they have been directly affected by the prohibition against affirmative action in the UC system. … The academic and emotional growth of many of these students has been severely impaired as a result of the ban.” Law school deans (including Judith Areen, Georgetown University Law Center; Anthony Kronman, Yale University; and Kathleen Sullivan, Stanford University) Counsel of record: Neal Katyal, Georgetown law professor. Quote: “Just as the law school deans would not support a court decision to force affirmative action on an unwilling law school with no previous history of racial discrimination, so too would they oppose a decision that forbids it when it is practiced appropriately. At stake in this case is the very freedom of academic institutions to act within reasonable bounds to further their educational and social missions.” 13,922 Current Law Students Counsel of record: Julie O’Sullivan, Georgetown law professor. Quote: “Diversity imparts invaluable educational and social benefits to law students in several ways. … The Michigan admissions policy does not assume that all minority applicants embrace the same ideas or approach problems in the same way. … What it does assume — with incontestable justification — is that certain applicants will bring to the classroom experiences borne of the social facts that race continues to matter, and that discrimination persists, in America.” FOR BARBARA GRUTTER Law professors (including John McGinnis and Stephen Presser, Northwestern University; Michael Paulsen, University of Minnesota; Bernard Siegan, University of San Diego) Counsel of record: Erik Jaffe, D.C. practitioner. Quote: “This Court should hold that ‘diversity’ is not a compelling state interest sufficient to justify race-based discrimination. … ‘Diversity’ is employed by universities as a shorthand term for discrimination on the basis of race. … Racial ‘diversity’ in the classroom does not constitute academic diversity; to the contrary, it is based on racial stereotyping and fosters stigmatization and hostility.” National Association of Scholars Counsel of record: Dimple Gupta, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. Quote: “There is no national consensus among educators favoring the use of racial preferences. Most faculty and students disfavor racial preferences in admissions. Indeed, recent research reveals that most African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, the principal intended beneficiaries of such preferences, reject them.” Asian American Legal Foundation Counsel of record: Gordon Fauth Jr., Girard Gibbs & DeBartolomeo, San Francisco. Quote: “Despite the fact that Asian Americans are considered culturally ‘different’ from other Americans and have historically experienced — and continue to experience overt racial and ethnic prejudice, diversity-based admission schemes are almost always used to exclude Asian Americans from educational institutions.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.