University President LAWRENCE H. SUMMERS discusses the Supreme Court's ruling with Dean of Admissions WILLIAM R. FITZSIMMONS ’67 at the Faculty Club this week.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Supporters of affirmative action in higher education—including Harvard’s top administrators—breathed a sigh of relief Monday as the Supreme Court delivered two landmark rulings upholding the use of race as a factor in admissions.

In closely divided opinions, the Court reiterated its view of affirmative action as a legal means for achieving diversity. But its treatment of the actual policies in question differed sharply between the two cases: while the admissions policy of the University of Michigan’s Law School was upheld, that of its undergraduate program—which uses a point-based system in which all minority applicants receive a fixed boost—was ruled unconstitutional.

Back in February, Harvard filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the general principles of affirmative action and diversity in the two cases against the University of Michigan. Six other top universities joined in that brief, which was authored in part by Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe ’62.

Tribe hailed the Court’s Monday ruling as a success for those who had filed the amicus brief.

“All those who believe in racial inclusion and broadening of opportunity in a multiracial society should be pleased by today’s narrow but significant victory,” he said.

In impromptu remarks at the Harvard Faculty Club before a summer meeting of college admissions officials Monday afternoon, University President Lawrence H. Summers called the decision historic.

“This is a very significant day for college admissions, a very significant day for higher education and a very important day for America,” he said. “The Court decided wisely.”

The Rulings

In its fragmented decision, the Court essentially upheld the status quo on affirmative action in higher education, reaffirming the standard that has served as the law of the land for a generation. That law was set by the Court’s last consideration of the issue, 1978’s Bakke v. University of California Regents.

The Court’s logic in both of the new cases—brought by white Michigan residents who had been denied admission to the University of Michigan—was explained in complicated rulings with numerous separate opinions from the justices.

In the first case, Grutter v. Bollinger, a 5-4 majority held that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is constitutionally acceptable. In that policy, race is used as one of several favored attributes in evaluating applicants—in addition to so-called “hard” variables such as test scores and grades—in order to achieve a “critical mass” of minority students for purposes of diversity.

Six out of the nine justices supported affirmative action in concept. Although he dissented from the Grutter decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy averred that the Bakke standard—and thus affirmative action—is valid, although he said the law school’s policy does not meet that standard.

“We completely won the issue,” Maureen Mahoney, an attorney for Michigan’s law school, told The Crimson.

But by a 6-3 vote in Gratz v. Bollinger, the justices overturned the admissions policy of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA). That policy automatically granted underrepresented minorities 20 points out of the 100 necessary for admission.

Linda J. Greenhouse ’68, the Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, said that despite the differing decisions, the result was a victory for affirmative action supporters.