Jennifer Gratz challenged affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan’s undergraduate school in 2003.
Editor’s note: Jennifer Gratz was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger which challenged affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She has since led efforts against racial preferences. Gratz graduated from the University of Michigan, Dearborn, with a degree in mathematics in 1999.
Opinion: It’s time for ‘equal’ to mean equal
By Jennifer Gratz, Special to CNN
(CNN) – There is a short phrase, just four words, inscribed up above the main entryway into United States Supreme Court, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
I took note of this inscription on April 1, 2003, when my case, Gratz v. Bollinger, and a companion case, Grutter v. Bollinger, were heard by the high court. My case challenged affirmative action policies in admissions at the University of Michigan’s undergraduate school; Barb Grutter’s challenged affirmative action policies at the law school. By the time my case was heard by the Supreme Court the University of Michigan admitted that their affirmative action policy gave a 20 point boost to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans on an admissions rating scale.
When I applied to University of Michigan in Ann Arbor for admission in 1995, I thought it was my path to medical school. When I received a rejection letter, I ultimately reconsidered my career choice, and pursued a degree in math at another University of Michigan campus. My confidence was shaken.
The court’s inscription brought confidence as I sat listening to oral arguments on that cold spring day. After all, how could anyone – especially legal scholars – conclude that “equal” meant unequal?
I thought I was prepared to hear anything during those arguments, but I don't think anything can prepare you to hear your own name referenced by a Supreme Court justice, as if you are just a policy on paper. If I remember correctly, "Gratz" was referenced in the very first question asked that day.
Each time they mentioned my name, I wanted to jump out of my seat and say, "I'm sitting right here. I'm a real person."
Just after the oral arguments, I stood on the steps of the court fielding questions from reporters and pointing up at that inscription, “Equal Justice Under Law.” In the days between oral arguments and the decisions in the Gratz and Grutter cases, I hoped the words inscribed in the building - the words enshrined in our Constitution’s 14th amendment - mattered. I hoped that the Court would find that diversity and other equally good intentions did not trump my right, or anyone’s right, to be treated equally and without regard to skin color by public institutions.
The Supreme Court handed down its split-decision in the Michigan cases on June 23, 2003. I won my case against the University of Michigan, but because the court upheld race preferences at the law school, I believed there was little to celebrate. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor penned the 5-4 decision in Grutter, letting state-sanctioned racial discrimination continue for one reason only - to promote racial diversity on college campuses. The court acknowledged that race preferences were discriminatory and a majority agreed that one day this discrimination should be unconstitutional. O’Connor even wrote that she hoped these policies would no longer be necessary by 2028. Talk about a kick to the gut, government sanctioned discrimination in the form of race preferences was allowed to continue in order to promote the “common good.”
Abigail Fisher’s challenge to race preferences in admissions at the University of Texas will be heard by the Supreme Court this fall. I’ve never met her, but I know what it’s like to feel the sting of discrimination and be told it was for the “common good.” I know what it’s like to wonder if the very people who talk about the “common good” would sit idly if their sons and daughters were discriminated against by universities and other public entities for the sake of diversity.
Finally, I know what it’s like to hear the empty talking point that “women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action,” failing to acknowledge that it has been women who have championed the cause of equal treatment without regard to race for the last three decades. Cheryl Hopwood challenged it in the 1990s against the University of Texas, which set-up Fisher’s new challenge. Katuria Smith challenged the University of Washington in the late 1990s. Barb Grutter and I challenged the University of Michigan in the 2000s.
Before the court hears arguments in Fisher’s case, I hope the justices notice that a lot has happened since Gratz and Grutter were decided.
Immediately following the Michigan decisions, I uprooted my life, resigned from a great job in the software industry and started the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a statewide ballot initiative that asked Michigan voters to decide if race preferences should continue at the University of Michigan. Overwhelmingly, Michiganders voted to neuter O’Connor’s ruling in the Grutter case, making state-sponsored discrimination unconstitutional in the Wolverine state.
Arizona, Nebraska and New Hampshire followed Michigan’s lead and Oklahoma is poised to ban race preferences this November. A critical mass, 27% of the population, now resides in states where race preferences have been banned by voters. California, Washington and Florida banned race preferences prior to the Michigan decisions.
My hope for Abigail Fisher is that when the justices reference the name Fisher, they don’t see an ambiguous, seemingly benign affirmative action policy on paper, but that they visualize a young woman whose dreams were dashed because of discrimination sanctioned by the state. I hope they see a young woman who is fighting for her right to equal treatment under the law. In 2012 it is long past time that the court follows those four words inscribed in the Supreme Court building and rules that equal means equal.
The opinions expressed are solely those of Jennifer Gratz.
Send Comments
Your comments will be added to the article that you write about, so include the article title
Today is
Equal Justice Under Law
NOT YET
Jennifer Gratz, I applaud your diligence and tenacity. Your a person that understand your rights and a believer in fighting for the your rights, with the full expectations of fair consideration, as written in the U.S. Constitution.
The Argument of fair consideration of admittance to all Universities, and Colleges, in the United States of America, is a dream that we all share.
Reverse Discrimination that you suffered, is a stinging reminder of the facts associated with, the racist and sexist history of the U.S...
The Fact is, not only is the United States of America, steeped in unfair dissemination of equal rights for all, the current state of American Congressional leadership, would be more apt to continue the rich history of sexism and racism, as opposed to ensuring that "Equal Justice Under Law" is a day to day guarantee.
I believe that what your really asking, of the Colleges & Universities, of this fine country of ours, is the same thing that we all want, however, our realization of these desires for "Equal Justice Under Law" is only as attainable, as the individual quality of character, of each and every individual, who sit in a position of influence from the bottom up.
The Application of admittance must go through a series of steps, in order to receive an approval, and each step along the way, there is an individual who has a responsibility, associated with the fair consideration, and review, of the information entered, on every block of the application.
If any individual along the path, has a under layering prejudice, of any kind, his/her prejudice affects each individual application, based on the information on the application, and the specific prejudice of the reviewer.
Mind you, any flawed representation of the process, affects the entire process, on a national level, and not just the individual who is subjected to the mal character of the single reviewer.
If by chance, a specific individual's application is accepted, and the submitter is accepted in a specific college, his/her acceptance is added to the collective pool of each individuals state totals, and then, aggregated into the nations numbers, based on the information provided on the individual application.
The Information on the accepted application is separated into many separate categories, which is then used as data specific information, for data analysis, based on the U.S., as an entire nation statistics.
That's The System, and the flaw is the individuals who are in positions of influence, as an application is being considered, along the way.
Every American Citizens is familiar with the terms "Racism & Bigotry", however, the individuals who actually understand racism & bigotry, from a "Victim's Perspective", have a higher degree of sensitivity to racism and bigotry, yet, any individual who have ever been a victim of racism and bigotry, doesn't have any control of a racist or bigoted act.
The Act of Racism and Bigotry is a developed consciousness, with many years of development, supported by a society of Racist & Bigots, who all thrive on committing acts of Racism and Bigotry, as if it's a game of "us against them", where the victims are them, and the team of "us", gather to share stories of their racist and bigoted acts and actions.
The Corrective Actions, with respect to, data analysis, that suggests that minorities are not being admitted into colleges and universities, at an acceptable level based on the ratio of blacks and whites admittance numbers, even when all colleges in the U.S., have been instructed to consciously admit minorities, to ensure that a specific ratio of minorities, are represented at all U.S. Colleges.
Thus, Affirmative Action, a fact that was established as an equalizer: Definition:
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.
Affirmative Action, March 6, 1961, signed by President Kennedy, with specific intent to ensure that a equal minimum ratio of race, and national origin, get equal consideration at colleges and government jobs, and, In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.
Jennifer Gratz, you are part of the affirmative action bowl, in that, "woman" are also factored in the calculus associated with data analysis.
To address your comments, regarding your feeling like "a policy on paper", the reality is, you are only a policy on paper, your part of a statistic whole, based on a number of different categories, and the fact that your bringing a law suit, based on your individual feelings of victimization, your actually representing the totality of the system, and therefore, your included in the total and not your individual case.
These are the facts of life, which we all must understand and realize. Racism & Bigotry affects us all, you and I equally, and your law suit brings to the for front, an un-intended consequences of affirmative action, yet not an un-intended effect, that will ultimately, cause a change based on your individual case.
150 Million People are affected by an act of racism or bigotry daily, and you’re just in the pot with the rest of us.
Jennifer Gratz, your specific fight, is your fight, and there are hundreds of thousands who have a fight each day, and the only rewards that we all can hope for is, attaining a win for our individualism, every now and then.
Keep Fighting, and I will too.
In My Opinion
ASMFMB
3/10/2012
Send Comments
Your comments will be added to the article that you write about, so include the article title
