Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

GRUTTER’S CONSISTENCY WITH THE CONSTITUTION

SFFA argues that the Supreme Court’s controlling precedent on race-based admissions, Grutter v. Bollinger, should be overruled because it is “grievously wrong.” Brief for Petitioner, Students for Fair Admission, Inc. at 50. SFFA asserts that Grutter is inconsistent with the fundamental principle of color-blindness originally intended in the Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 50–51. SFFA further contends that Grutter fails to satisfy strict scrutiny, the standard which courts use to review racial classifications under the Fourteenth Amendment, because no “compelling interest” justifies their use in school admissions. Id. at 51. SFFA argues that, because race is a poor proxy for applicants’ varying life experiences, the educational benefits derived from racial diversity alone are dubious and thus not a compelling interest. Id. at 53. SFFA likewise notes that, rather than dismantle racial stereotypes, racial classifications inherently exacerbate them and therefore cannot serve a compelling interest by providing any educational benefits. Id. at 54. SFFA also argues that Grutter does not withstand strict scrutiny because it does not require that universities pursue alternative strategies to achieve the same “compelling interests” that avoid racial classifications. Id. at 56. Finally, SFFA contends that Grutter is wrong because courts have consistently undermined the decision by limiting when and where it can be applied, because universities generally do not believe in its reasoning, and because the Supreme Court in Grutter factually misunderstood Harvard University’s admissions policy, which the decision relied on as a model for other schools. Id. at 57–60.

UNC counters that Grutter should not be overruled because it was correctly decided. Brief for Respondent, UNC at 28. UNC contends that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to be color-blind, pointing to the evolution of its draft language from demanding race neutrality to requiring “equal protection of the laws” to suggest that the Amendment permits racial classifications. Id. at 29–30; Brief for Respondent, UNC Students Cecilia Polanco, et al. at 20, 33. UNC also notes that laws passed and programs enacted at the same time as the Fourteenth Amendment categorized based on race, such as the Freedmen’s Bureau, suggesting that Congress intended for the Fourteenth Amendment to do so as well. Brief for Respondent-University at 30, 32–33; Brief for Respondent-Students at 20. UNC additionally maintains that racial classifications used to create a diverse learning environment are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment because they promote integration of racially diverse students. Brief for Respondent-University at 35. UNC further asserts that Grutter is consistent with the First Amendment, which protects freedom of academic expression, by allowing universities to select a student body consistent with their academic objectives. Brief for Respondent-Students at 35. Lastly, UNC argues that diversity in educational settings is a “compelling interest” because it encourages commingling of students with different experiences who go on to become better citizens as a result. Id. at 40; Brief for Respondent-University at 38.

WORKABILITY OF GRUTTER

SFFA argues that the Court should overrule Grutter because the decision has caused “significant negative consequences.” Brief for Petitioner at 60. SFFA argues that, because the language of Grutter is too confusing and vague for universities to implement, the decision can only be enforced through litigation against individual universities on an ad hoc basis. Id. at 62. Moreover, SFFA asserts that Grutter allows universities to intentionally discriminate against oppressed groups and perpetuate racial stereotypes using their admissions programs by incorporating racially coded criteria into their application evaluation processes. Id. at 62–63. SFFA also maintains that Grutter encourages universities to set discriminatory examples for students through segregated academic and residential programming and discard intellectual diversity on campus altogether. Id. at 64–65.

SFFA also argues that the Court should overrule Grutter because the decision has generated “no legitimate reliance interests,” which reflect the potential harm to individuals or groups that have acted in dependence on the law. Brief for Petitioner at 65. Principally, SFFA asserts that nobody has a justifiable reliance interest in discrimination. Id. at 66; Reply Brief for Petitioner at 18. SFFA notes that racial classifications in university admissions are widely unpopular nationwide and that many states ban them. Brief for Petitioner at 66. SFFA also points to a statement in Grutter itself that racial classifications would be unnecessary in school admissions twenty-five years from the opinion’s announcement in 2003, suggesting that the Supreme Court in Grutter warned universities not to rely on it for perpetual protection of race-based admissions policies. Id. at 68. Finally, SFFA contends that the burden on universities in updating discriminatory admissions policies is minimal and that students cannot rely on the continuity of these policies because race is not affirmatively selected but is an immutable characteristic. Id. at 69–70.

To the contrary, UNC maintains that Grutter provides a workable standard for universities because it prescribes precise guidelines that universities have easily met. Brief for Respondent-University at 41–42; Brief for Respondent-Students at 36–37. UNC also asserts that the ad hoc nature of factual analysis that Grutter requires is typical in constitutional law and does not undermine the standard’s workability. Id. UNC further argues that, rather than have negative consequences, Grutter has positively affected society and universities through reduced prejudice and enhanced student performance and wellbeing, respectively. Brief for Respondent-Students at 39. UNC counters that Grutter cannot be causally linked to racially segregated activities at universities and that, even if it could, racial affinity groups do not promote racial segregation. Id. at 42.

UNC counters that Grutter has generated “extensive reliance interests.” Brief for Respondent-University at 43. UNC states that universities across the country have expended considerable resources ensuring that their admissions policies are consistent with Grutter and designing academic programming based on their ability to procure racially diverse classes of students. Id. at 44–45. UNC also points to the nation’s abundant cultural acceptance of diversity to suggest that the Court would disrupt this social value by overturning Grutter and notes that many universities and legislatures have opted not to enact policies contrary to Grutter. Id. at 44, 46. UNC also argues that Grutter’s 25-year timeline was only an expectation, not a deadline, and that Grutter permitted universities to continue using racial classifications in perpetuity if necessary. Id. at 46–47. UNC finally argues that employers have relied on Grutter for a racially diverse supply of new employees and that students and applicants have relied on UNC preparing them to work in a diverse environment. Brief for Respondent-Students at 43–45.

UNC’S ADMISSIONS PROGRAM UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY

SFFA argues that UNC’s race-based admissions program does not meet the strict scrutiny standard because UNC could pursue alternative strategies that would accomplish the same educational benefits as racial classifications. Brief for Petitioner at 83. For instance, SFFA points to several changes in admissions models that would produce a racially diverse student body without using racial classifications, such as privileging socioeconomically disadvantaged students instead of racial minorities, eliminating admissions preferences that disproportionately benefit white applicants, and “percentage plans” that would accept a certain percentage of top students at all North Carolina high schools. Id. at 83-85. SFFA maintains that the adverse impacts of these options on UNC, such as minor administrative burdens or slight declines in minority representation, are insufficient to overcome strict scrutiny, especially when other prominent universities have successfully enacted them while simultaneously enhancing their racial diversity. Id. at 85.

UNC counters that its racial classifications meet the strict scrutiny standard because the alternative approaches SFFA proposes are unworkable. Brief for Respondent-University at 50. UNC contends that the approaches SFFA advances rely on unrealistic assumptions regarding applicant behavior, such as the assumptions that every eligible applicant in North Carolina would apply to the University or that applicants would not change their behavior in response to modifications to the admissions process. Id. at 50–51. UNC also notes that the SFFA’s proposals would dramatically depart from its presently holistic application review process and require the University to narrowly focus on test scores and grades. Brief for Respondent-Students at 49. UNC asserts that, while it is not required to try every possible alternative, it continually assesses race-neutral alternatives to its current practices but has yet to identify a workable one. Id. at 55; Brief for Respondent-Students at 46.