Which two 2003 cases involved race-conscious admissions in higher education, one upholding and one striking down?

Which two 2003 cases involved race-conscious admissions in higher education, one upholding and one striking down?

• A. Grutter v. Bollinger (upheld) and Gratz v. Bollinger (struck down)
• B. Regents of University of California v. Bakke and Fisher v. University of Texas
• C. Milliken v. Bradley and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
• D. Adarand Constructors v. Peña and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle

Answer: (A)

The idea is that universities may consider race as one factor among many to foster a diverse student body, but the approach has to be narrowly tailored and not rely on automatic preferences. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided two cases on this issue with opposite outcomes. For the law school policy, the Court upheld it because race was used as part of a holistic, individualized review aimed at achieving diversity, not as a quota or mechanical advantage. This shows that diversity can be a compelling interest and that the method can be permissible when it carefully tailors how race is considered, avoiding fixed points or quotas. By contrast, the undergraduate policy was struck down because it awarded applicants points based largely on race, producing an automatic preference that was not narrowly tailored and thus too blunt a tool to achieve diversity. This distinction—holistic, case-by-case evaluation versus fixed, race-based scoring—illustrates why one decision stands and the other does not. Other options either involve different contexts (such as K–12 or public contracting), or refer to earlier or unrelated Supreme Court topics, so they don’t pair two 2003 race-conscious admissions cases in higher education.

The idea is that universities may consider race as one factor among many to foster a diverse student body, but the approach has to be narrowly tailored and not rely on automatic preferences. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided two cases on this issue with opposite outcomes. For the law school policy, the Court upheld it because race was used as part of a holistic, individualized review aimed at achieving diversity, not as a quota or mechanical advantage. This shows that diversity can be a compelling interest and that the method can be permissible when it carefully tailors how race is considered, avoiding fixed points or quotas. By contrast, the undergraduate policy was struck down because it awarded applicants points based largely on race, producing an automatic preference that was not narrowly tailored and thus too blunt a tool to achieve diversity. This distinction—holistic, case-by-case evaluation versus fixed, race-based scoring—illustrates why one decision stands and the other does not. Other options either involve different contexts (such as K–12 or public contracting), or refer to earlier or unrelated Supreme Court topics, so they don’t pair two 2003 race-conscious admissions cases in higher education.