The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23 decision striking down the University of Michigan’s race-based undergraduate admissions policy ended a decade-long struggle started by university administrators and finished by conservative legislators and their grassroots supporters.

On April 23, 1997, Michigan State Rep. David Jaye, a paleoconservative Republican from suburban Macomb County, sponsored an amendment to the higher-education appropriation prohibiting any public “institution of higher education” from implementing

an admissions policy that includes any quota, set-aside, numerical goal, time table, extension of application deadlines, grade adjustment, or other objective based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Jaye’s amendment targeted the undergraduate admissions policy at the University of Michigan, the state’s most prestigious public school.  Jaye, a U of M  graduate of Polish-American heritage, argued that the policy was race-based and unconstitutional.  A coalition of liberal Republicans and Democrats defeated his measure.  Michigan’s Republican leadership feared a challenge to U of M’s race-based policy would increase black voter turnout in Detroit and harm the electoral chances of statewide GOP candidates.  Their indifference to the young victims of U of M’s discriminatory policies was one factor that prompted four conservative legislators (Jaye, Deborah Whyman, Michelle McManus, and me) to initiate the process that led to the landmark legal decision Gratz v.  Bollinger.

Data obtained by U of M philosophy professor Carl Cohen under the state Freedom of Information Act in 1996 was, perhaps, the key factor.  The data made the legal challenge possible, revealing that U of M used a grid system, the outright intent of which was to discriminate against white applicants.  “I finally got a batch of documents and then more documents later on, and then more,” Dr. Cohen told PBS reporter Elizabeth Brackett.  He termed the documents 

shocking, shocking data, which the university wants to keep confidential.  I’ve got some samples here, but, you see, there they put “confidential, internal use only.”  But, of course, that doesn’t protect it from the “Freedom of Information” Act request.

Another factor was Whyman’s tenacity in confronting Michigan’s most-powerful public school.  Only four of the 78 Republican legislators serving at the time publicly endorsed the challenge.  Many were liberal Republicans who support race-based admissions, but others were intimidated by U of M and by corporations that support reverse discrimination.  The four of us released a statewide notice that encouraged students who had been denied admission to contact Whyman’s office.  More than 100 victims stepped forward.

The final factors were Jennifer Gratz, a courageous teenager, and the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a conservative Washington public-interest law firm that had triumphed in similar cases.  The legal work of CIR attorneys was crucial to the ultimate outcome.  In fall 1997, CIR filed suit against U of M on behalf of Gratz, a graduate of Southgate Anderson High School in blue-collar Downriver Detroit.  According to the complaint,

Defendants used different admissions standards based on each student’s self-identified race.  As a result, students from favored racial groups had a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups . . . Defendants did not merely use race as a “plus” factor or as one of many factors to obtain a diverse student body.  Rather, race was one of the predominant factors (along with scores on standardized admissions tests and high school grades) used for determining admission.

Among those filing amici briefs opposing U of M were the Asian-American Legal Foundation, the Center for New Black Leadership, the National Association of Scholars, and Ward Connerly.

U of M officials defended their use of race-based practices dating to the early 1990’s.  President Lee Bollinger tried to frame the issue as “resegregation.”  However, weaknesses in U of M’s grid system soon became apparent.  In 1998, it was replaced by a point system that still awarded 20 points (out of a possible 150) to “underrepresented minorities.”  Students needed 100 points to gain admission.  Applicants with perfect GPA’s obtained 80 points; Michigan residents received 20 points; and high entrance exam scores earned 10 points.  Gratz graduated with a 3.8 GPA and an ACT score of 25.  The results placed her on U of M’s waiting list, while a black applicant was admitted.  By mid-1999, U of M’s attorneys were arguing in court:

[A]n examination of admissions data cautions against overstating the significance of the grids.  The data show that the grids were not rigidly applied to compel certain results, but rather served as a guide to decisions made in the exercise of professional judgment by the counselors.  The data therefore confirm that the grids did not produce mechanical results.

The Supreme Court rejected that argument, striking down U of M’s undergraduate admissions policy 6-3.  Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority:

[T]he Court finds that the University’s current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single “underrepresented minority” applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer joined Rehnquist, while Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.  The Court also upheld U of M’s law-school admissions policy 5-4 in a separate case, Grutter v.   Bollinger.  The policy assigns no numerical value to a race-based application but weighs it in the admissions process.  In Grutter, the Court accepted “diversity” but narrowed its use post-Bakke.

The Court’s ruling in Gratz was a defeat for U of M and its supporters, who privately told Michigan legislators in the 1990’s that they would not compromise on the race-based policy.  Dr. Carl Cohen’s research, Deborah Whyman’s tenacity, Jennifer Gratz’s courage, the CIR’s legal work, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling mean that the University of Michigan can no longer discriminate against undergraduate applicants on the basis of race.