Grutter V. Bollinger Case Analysis

The Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger and in Gratz v. Bollinger are two compelling and complex cases. In the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme court favored that race and ethnicity along with other factors are justifiable in the admission process of promoting a diverse and inclusive student body on the premises of state law schools. I agree with the court's decision because minorities only make up a small percentage on college campuses and universities, and that race and ethnicity does play a crucial role in recruiting students of colors from various cultural backgrounds. Students must be trained scholars who know how to interact with people from all walks of life and they must be able to adapt and understand different people in different environments in a given context. The goal is for everyone

to learn how to work together regardless of race and ethnicity in order to promote effective participation from all members in a heterogeneous society. 
Compared and contrasted to the Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Fisher v. University of Texas case be linked to the same outcome from the court’s decision regarding race preference for admission in undergrad school. In 2008, Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University of Texas at Austin; however, she was denied admission and filed a suit against the school on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment ( Fisher, 2012 web). During this time period, there was a relative low percentage of minorities enrolled at the institution and as a result, the school revised their admission policy. The policy was aimed to be “race-neutral” and targeted all in-state students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school classes (Fisher, 2012, web). When Fisher applied to the school, she did not graduate in the top ten percent of her class and therefore, she was actually competing against other non-top ten graduates for college admission. The University of Texas at Austin argued that “its use of race was a narrowly tailored means of pursuing greater diversity” and the court decided to rule in their favor (Fisher, 2012, web). I too agree with the court’s verdict because increasing diversity on college campuses is essential to student’s learning environment of thinking outside of the box and challenge them to get out of their comfort zones.
Unlike the Grutter v.

Bollinger case, the Gratz v. Bollinger case favored a different ruling in which race was not constitutional for distributing 20 or 1/5 of points to minorities who were underrepresented on the campus of state universities. I too agree with the court's decision because race can often get complicated when other factors such as being bi-racial and being a certain percentage of other ethnicities can be difficult to classify or group. Giving me 20 points on my application just because I'm Black is somewhat impeding and downgrading; my education, extra-curriculum activities, and other leadership experiences will be devalued and unappreciated in my eyes. I am a strong advocate for more racial inclusion and diversity programs on college campuses; however, I understand that race can be complex with negating and challenging certain stereotypes or other taboo topics that relates to race and ethnicity. Thus, another person's race should not be more valued or look down upon just because of phylogenetic features. Each race should be viewed as one of the same, but in reality, its not because of economical disparities, political beliefs, and social

differences.