How would you rule on the case Gratz v. Bollinger?The case Gratz v. Bollinger is a very complicated one because it involves two sides that have respectable points even though one side is supported by the law. For someone to rule on this case, first has to analyze it in detail. Jennifer Gratz, a white female, resident of Michigan, applied to the University of Michigan in 1995 and was denied admission. In October 1997 she and Patrick Hamacher another white student who was also denied admission filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court. Both of this students qualified to assist this university but were denied admissions. Lee Bollinger was the president of Michigan University while the lawsuit was filed so he spoke on behalf of the university.
The Admissions Office of Michigan University has a policy that every applicant from an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority group, meaning African Americans, Native Americans or Hispanics are automatically awarded 20 points of the 100 needed to guarantee admission.
This increases the chance for them to be accepted and makes it harder for whites, which have to go with the normal method of admissions. The main reason why this all resulted in such a dispute was because of affirmative action, which in my opinion is an illegal policy.
Gratz and Hamacher alleged the following. "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment... and for racial discrimination" (Wikipedia). The Fourteenth Amendment calls for equal rights for all American citizens and the University of Michigan violates this amendment with its undergraduate admissions policy. The university claimed that one of their interests was having a racially and ethnically diverse student body but in my opinion if...