Source: http://www.debatingracialpreference.org/GRATZ-GRUTTER-Contents.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:16:58+00:00

Document:
Computed from 1995 undergraduate admissions data provided by the University of Michigan to the Center for Equal Opportunity for its report, "Racial Preferences in Michigan Higher Education."
Excerpted from the Opinion of Judge Patrick Duggan in Gratz v. Bollinger, (Case # 97-CV-75231-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, December 13, 2000.
Compiled from the Powerpoint presentation by Plaintiff's statistician, Dr. Kinley Larntz, in Grutter v. Bollinger, (Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, January 7, 2001.
Excerpted from the cross-examination of Plaintiff's statistician by Stuart Delery, counsel for the Defendant, in Grutter v. Bollinger (Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, January 17, 2001.
Excerpted from the Opinion of Judge Bernard Friedman in Grutter v. Bollinger, (Civil Action # 97-CV-75928-DT) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, March 27, 2001.
The Petitioner in Gratz v. Bollinger argues that the pursuit of diversity cannot be a compelling interest under constitutional law, because there are no principled limits on its scope or duration.
The Respondent in Gratz v. Bollinger argues that the University's undergraduate college must use race-based admissions in order to obtain a meaningful level of racial and ethnic diversity in its student body.
The Petitioner in Grutter v. Bollinger argues that the Law School's use of race is a fundamental departure from the guarantee of governmental nondiscrimination, unjustified by any compelling interest in "academic freedom" or "diversity."
The Respondent in Grutter v. Bollinger argues that racial diversity, which is essential to the Law School's educational mission, requires a limited and individualized consideration of race in admissions.
Pro Gratz and Grutter -- The Center for Equal Opportunity et al. argue that the Supreme Court should address, and reject, the "diversity" justification for racial and ethnic discrimination.
Excerpted from the Brief for the NAS as amicus curiae supporting Petitioner.
Pro Grutter -- The United States argues that Michigan's race-based admissions policy is unnecessary and unconstitutional, since race-neutral alternatives are available to maintain minority enrollment.
Pro Grutter -- The National Association of Scholars argues that racial preference in public university admissions is opposed by most faculty and students, and by most minority group members.
Pro the University of Michigan -- Lt. Gen. Julius Becton, Jr. et al. argue that the government's compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps requires race-conscious policies in the armed forces, and in the universities.
Pro the University of Michigan -- Leading American Businesses argue that the pursuit of diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest, because it prepares all students to succeed in and enhance the global community.
Excerpted from a Brief representing sixty-five leading American businesses, as amici curiae supporting Respondent.
Pro the University of Michigan – Glenn C. Loury et al. argue that percentage plans, devised to replace race-conscious admissions, have not been notably successful in promoting diversity, and would do worse in Michigan.
Pro the University of Michigan -- The American Psychological Association argues that racial diversity in higher education helps to combat racial prejudice and discrimination.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 10:00 a.m., April 1, 2003 (Complete transcript with commentary.) Kirk O. Kolbo, Esq., in behalf of Barbara Grutter.
Theodore B. Olson, United States Solicitor General, in support of Grutter.
Maureen E. Mahoney, Esq., in behalf of the University of Michigan Law School.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 11:00 a.m., April 1, 2003 (Complete transcript with commentary.) Kirk O. Kolbo, Esq., in behalf of Jennifer Gratz & Patrick Hamacher.
Theodore B. Olson, United States Solicitor General, in support of Gratz & Hamacher. John Payton, Esq., in behalf of the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.