Which case addressed affirmative action in university admissions and upheld race as a factor?

Which case addressed affirmative action in university admissions and upheld race as a factor?

• A. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
• B. Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)
• C. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
• D. Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how the Supreme Court views using race in admissions as part of a holistic, narrowly tailored approach to achieve educational diversity. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that a university law school could consider race as one factor among many in its admissions process because achieving a diverse student body serves a compelling public interest. The policy wasn’t a quota or a mechanical point system; it was a holistic review that treated race as one element among several factors and included safeguards to ensure it remained narrowly tailored. The decision emphasized that diversity contributes to the educational mission and that the program could be maintained for a period with ongoing assessment to prevent racial balancing. For context, this approach sits within strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest and that the measure is narrowly tailored to accomplish it. Grutter is the leading example where that balance was found to be permissible. Other cases touch on related ideas but aren’t the same fit. Loving v. Virginia dealt with interracial marriage, not admissions policies. Bakke ruled against a fixed racial quota but allowed race to be considered as one factor, which is a narrower point of distinction than Grutter’s broader endorsement of race as part of a holistic review. Fisher v. University of Texas, decided later, also upheld a race-conscious admissions program under strict scrutiny, further illustrating the ongoing acceptance of race as one factor when carefully tailored.

The key idea is how the Supreme Court views using race in admissions as part of a holistic, narrowly tailored approach to achieve educational diversity. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that a university law school could consider race as one factor among many in its admissions process because achieving a diverse student body serves a compelling public interest. The policy wasn’t a quota or a mechanical point system; it was a holistic review that treated race as one element among several factors and included safeguards to ensure it remained narrowly tailored. The decision emphasized that diversity contributes to the educational mission and that the program could be maintained for a period with ongoing assessment to prevent racial balancing.

For context, this approach sits within strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest and that the measure is narrowly tailored to accomplish it. Grutter is the leading example where that balance was found to be permissible. Other cases touch on related ideas but aren’t the same fit. Loving v. Virginia dealt with interracial marriage, not admissions policies. Bakke ruled against a fixed racial quota but allowed race to be considered as one factor, which is a narrower point of distinction than Grutter’s broader endorsement of race as part of a holistic review. Fisher v. University of Texas, decided later, also upheld a race-conscious admissions program under strict scrutiny, further illustrating the ongoing acceptance of race as one factor when carefully tailored.