In 2003, the Supreme Court delivered a ruling on the case stating that the University of Michigan Law School narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions was constitutional (Walker, Spohn, & Delon 208). During this case the Supreme Court cleared the air by concluding that having a student body with diverse culture and origin is a compelling state interest hence justifies the use of racial factor in admission of students, effectively locking out Grutter from admission (Walker, Spohn, & Delon 210). Consequently, the judgment removed prolonged doubt that has existed within learning institutions, encouraging them to use racial factor in making admissions determinations.
I strongly agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in promoting racial interactions as well as considerations of the minorities through affirmative action. Even though many scholars such as Richard Sander have greatly proposed the affirmative action on basis that it hurts instead of helping, the truth is that many stakeholders have significantly benefitted from the same (Walker, Spohn, & Delon 209). Affirmative action is a constitutional concept that needs to be upheld with all dignity and integrity. In this regard, the University of Michigan’s Law School admission policy was able to pass the test of scrutiny since strict scrutiny has been considered for a long time as a relevant review standard especially in scenarios where the Constitution faces racial challenges (Walker, Spohn, & Delon 155). Various virtues of diversity within learning institutions were provided by the Supreme Court while delivering its judgment, which explains reasons for enhancing racial diversity through development of policies that promote affirmative action (Walker, Spohn, & Delon 208).