Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Rhetoric and Reality in the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases

Abstract

Two cases recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court will likely determine the future direction of U.S. higher education. The cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger challenge the legality of affirmative action programs in the University of Michigan Law School and in the University of Michigan Undergraduate College. The plaintiffs, supported by the Center for Individual Rights and other conservative organizations, contend that the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs engage in “reverse discrimination” by favoring Black and Latino students for admission over equally or better qualified white students. The University of Michigan, joined by a broad coalition of universities, corporations, and social activist organizations, reject characterizations of affirmative action programs in the Law School and Undergraduate College as “racial preferences” or “racial quotas.” Instead, the University argues that race is but one of several factors legitimately considered in the effort to assemble a diverse student body where the educational benefits of diversity are maximized.

Citation

Allen, W.R. (2005), "Sticks, Stones, and Broken Bones: Rhetoric and Reality in the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases", Allen, W.R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., Teranishi, R.T. and Dano, O.C. (Ed.) Higher Education in a Global Society: Achieving Diversity, Equity and Excellence (Advances in Education in Diverse Communities, Vol. 5), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 203-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-358X(05)05010-2