Affirmative Action in Higher Education: Recent Developments in Litigation, Admissions and Diversity Research

Abstract

I. Affirmative Action Litigation Update ................................................................ 174 A. The Current Landscape and the Role of Intervenors ................................. 174 B. Grutter: The University of Michigan Law School Case ............................ 176 1. Trial Court Ruling on the University's Case: Diversity is not a C om pelling Interest ............................................................................ 176 i). Factual Findings .......................................................................... 176 ii) Bakke and the Diversity Issue ...................................................... 178 iii) Diversity and Educational Benefits ............................................. 179 iv) N arrow Tailoring ....................................................................... 179 2. Silencing the Grutter Intervenors: Obscuring Issues of Bias and D iscrim ination .................................................................................... 180 i) Societal D iscrim ination? .............................................................. 180 ii) Evidence of Bias in Standardized Testing ................................... 181 iii) Trial Court Findings on Testing .................................................. 185 iv) Evidence of Bias in Undergraduate Grades: Campus Climate R esearch ...................................................................................... 186 v) Trial Court Findings on the Campus Climate Study .................... 187 vi) Other Components of the Intervenors' Case ................................ 188 3. Post-trial D evelopm ents ...................................................................... 190 C. Gratz: The University of Michigan Undergraduate Case ......................... 190 1. University Wins Partial Summary Judgment ..................................... 190 2. Intervenors Loses Case for a Remedial Rationale ............................... 193 D. The University of Washington Law School and Initiative-200 ................. 195 1. Ninth Circuit Rules that Diversity is Compelling ............................... 196 E. The Fifth Circuit's Rulings in Hopwoodll and III ................................... 197 1. Brief Overview of Hopwood// ........................................................... 197 2. Recent Developments: Hopwoodlll ................................................... 198 F. The U niversity of G eorgia ......................................................................... 200 1. District Court Rejects Bakke Diversity Rationale ............................... 200 2. The Intervenors' Role ........................................................................ 201 3. Eleventh Circuit Ruling on Narrow Tailoring ..................................... 202 G. California: The Post-Affirmative Action Landscape ................................. 204