Published on June 23, 2003

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 of 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 said the decision was 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

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

In 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.

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

But a 6-3 vote by the justices overturned the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy in Gratz v. Bollinger. That policy automatically granted underrepresented minorities 20 points out of the 100 necessary for admission.

Both rulings relied on the idea of diversity as a “compelling interest” in an academic institution.

That rationale was first raised by former Justice Lewis F. Powell in 1978’s University of California Regents v. Bakke case.

In that contentious, fragmented 5-4 ruling—the major legal precedent for affirmative action in higher education—the Court struck down the University of California Medical School’s strict quota system for minority applicants. But Powell, who cast the decisive vote, defended the use of race in university admissions decisions, citing Harvard’s policies as a model.