David W. DeBruin
Attorney, Jenner & Block
Excerpted from a Brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, Grutter v. Bollinger, Feb. 18, 2003.

Diversity in higher education is a compelling government interest not only because of its positive effects on the educational environment itself, but also because of the crucial role diversity in higher education plays in preparing students to be the leaders this country needs in business, law and all other pursuits that affect the public interest. . . .

[B]y enriching students' education with a variety of perspectives, experiences and ideas, a university with a diverse student body equips all of its students with the skills and understanding necessary to succeed in any profession. Those skills include the ability to understand, learn from, and work and build consensus with individuals from different backgrounds and cultures. . . .

There are several reasons for the importance of maintaining diversity in higher education. First, a diverse group of individuals educated in a cross-cultural environment has the ability to facilitate unique and creative approaches to problem-solving arising from the integration of different perspectives.

Second, such individuals are better able to develop products and services that appeal to a variety of consumers and to market offerings in ways that appeal to those consumers. Third, a racially diverse group of managers with cross-cultural experience is better able to work with business partners, employees and clientele in the United States and around the world. Fourth, individuals who have been educated in a diverse setting are likely to contribute to a positive work environment, by decreasing incidents of discrimination and stereotyping.

Overall, an educational environment that ensures participation by diverse people, viewpoints and ideas will help produce the most talented workforce. The thrust of the government's position is that it is permissible to take affirmative steps to ensure educational diversity — a goal that itself includes consideration of race. The United States defends particular admissions programs it prefers in Texas, Florida and California explicitly on the ground that those programs allegedly continue to produce, at least in raw numbers, the same racial and ethnic diversity in enrollment.

Institutions of higher learning must be allowed to prepare students to thrive in an increasingly diverse environment. The best way to do this is to ensure that students learn in an environment of diversity, including racial and cultural diversity. Accordingly, institutions of higher learning should be able to use “competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin” in pursuit of a diverse student body.

George W. Bush
President of the United States
Excerpted from remarks made on Jan. 15, 2003

Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law. Yet we know that our society has not fully achieved that ideal. Racial prejudice is a reality in America. It hurts many of our citizens. As a nation, as a government, as individuals, we must be vigilant in responding to prejudice wherever we find it. Yet, as we work to address the wrong of racial prejudice, we must not use means that create another wrong, and thus perpetuate our divisions.

America is a diverse country, racially, economically and ethnically. And our institutions of higher education should reflect our diversity. A college education should teach respect and understanding and goodwill. And these values are strengthened when students live and learn with people from many backgrounds. Yet quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution. . . .

The University of Michigan has established an admissions process based on race. At the undergraduate level, African-American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African-American, Hispanic or Native American. To put this in perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system. Students who accumulate 100 points are generally admitted, so those 20 points awarded solely based on race are often the decisive factor.

At the law school, some minority students are admitted to meet percentage targets while other applicants with higher grades and better scores are passed over. This means that students are being selected or rejected based primarily on the color of their skin. The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong.

Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas. Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low-income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity. In these states, race-neutral admissions policies have resulted in levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to, and in some instances slightly surpass, those under the old race-based approach.