My One-L Life: Where 'Grutter' Hits Close to Home
It's been a strange experience to read about the U.S. Supreme Court justices disagreeing with the admissions process at Michigan Law School, while sitting in the halls of that school as a student lucky enough to be let in.
April 10, 2019 at 01:53 PM
6 minute read
When I submitted my application to Michigan Law School many moons ago (in late 2017), I tried not to think too hard about how the school would assess my application. I took the LSAT, sent in my transcript, wrote my essays and hoped for the best. Frankly, I didn't want to know the anxiety-inducing details of how I would be judged.
I was not moved to contemplate the inner workings of the school's admissions office once I received my acceptance letter, either—until recently. With the end of my 1L year quickly approaching, I was assigned to read Grutter v. Bollinger in two courses, Constitutional Law and Sex Equality, and I was startled to find that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and the rest of the Supreme Court circa 2003 had some thoughts about how Michigan Law School should decide to accept or reject a given applicant.
I'll leave the analysis of the complex constitutional issues to those who have studied the case for more than a few days, but here's a quick summary: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the admissions policy used at Michigan Law at the time, which provided for the consideration of race as one of several factors in evaluating an applicant.
O'Connor's majority opinion declared that “obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body” was a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify the school's use of racial classification.
Naturally, reading Grutter—and hearing my professors' behind-the-scenes insight into the discussions that went on at the school during the litigation—prompted me to think about how the case applied to my classmates and me.
I should note first that, despite the court's ruling, the race-conscious admissions policy was actually not in effect when Michigan Law admitted me. In 2006, the people of Michigan voted to change the Michigan Constitution to ban the use of race and other factors in admissions at state schools, including the law school. The school's current policy retains a commitment to “diversity along many dimensions” but noticeably omits the words “race” or “ethnicity.”
That change notwithstanding, it was a strange experience to read Supreme Court justices disagree about the admissions process at Michigan Law School, while sitting in the halls of that school as a student lucky enough to be let in. At its core, Grutter was about much more than what the Constitution allows or prohibits. Underlying the opinions was an uncomfortably probing question: Who gets in to top law schools like Michigan and why?
I happened to read Grutter at roughly the same time as news broke about the indictments of Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin and ex-Willkie Farr & Gallagher co-chair Gordon Caplan among other wealthy parents in the undergraduate college admissions scandal, with the ensuing media frenzy highlighting how admissions are sometimes not merit-based at all.
Law schools weren't involved in that particular criminal conspiracy, of course. However, in a broader sense, privilege and wealth can shape an application to law school in much the same ways it shapes an undergraduate one: more LSAT prep, generational familiarity with the process, fewer worries about the burden of tuition, a higher likelihood of graduating from an elite undergrad, and so on. I had some of those privileges.
Recognition of those privileges (and, conversely, the systemic barriers imposed on to those who lack them) presumably played a role in the law school's use of a holistic, race-conscious admissions policy in the first place—which brings me back to the questions posed by Grutter. In his dissent, Thomas asked, “Who can differentiate between those who belong and those who do not?”
He was referring to the stigma he believed affirmative action imposed on black students who attended Michigan Law School, arguing that the policy creates a presumption that race was the “real” reason they were admitted. But I have a problem with a fundamental premise of his question, as it applies to any law student: This idea that some people definitively “belong” at a particular law school and others definitively do not. To the contrary, no single metric can make “belonging” knowable. None of us knows the “real” reason for our admission.
Nonetheless, the concept of “belonging” does seem to permeate the law school dynamic, sometimes in toxic ways. “Imposter syndrome,” a psychology term describing feelings of inadequacy and nagging doubts about the validity of your accomplishments, is brought up often in the context of law school, where everyone seems hyperqualified, the grading system is predicated on comparing you with your peers, and GPA appears to directly affect employment prospects. Every bad grade invokes fear that the admissions office made a mistake, that everyone else is exceedingly more competent.
These doubts are based in feeling, not fact. The curve forces worse grades for some than others. That's the whole point of it. Neither grades nor the LSAT nor law firm job offers can dictate “belonging.”
Thomas actually approaches this point himself in his Grutter dissent, although from a different angle. He questions why the law school insists on using the LSAT in admissions. If it did not, the school could race-neutrally admit a more diverse student body, albeit at the cost of its U.S. News ranking, he argued. Does the LSAT really predict performance in the study of law? And does a degree from a highly ranked law school predict performance in the actual practice of law?
I have no answers to those questions, sadly, as I'm a lowly 1L who has yet to actually secure a law degree, much less practice law. But 16 years after Grutter, thoughtful discussions about admissions in higher education are still worth having—whether celebrity bribery is involved or not.
Renee Griffin is a first-year student at University of Michigan Law School.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A
The Growing Antitrust Scrutiny of DraftKings and FanDuel
What Qualities Will Distinguish Good from Great Service In 2025?
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250