Hiro Hikawa (George Washington University) & Joseph L. Gastwirth (George Washington University - Columbian College of Arts and Sciences) When is an Affirmative Action Plan not 'Narrowly Tailored' or Unduly Harms Other Applicants? A Statistical Re-Examination of the Data in Grutter v. Bollinger and a More Focused Alternative Plan on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In fall 2022, the US Supreme Court will review lower court decisions concerning the affirmative action steps Universities may take to diversify their student body. One specific question is “Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?” This paper reviews the statistics presented to the Court in Grutter and presents an alternative analysis, demonstrating that the plan approved in Grutter probably disadvantaged a larger proportion of White applicants than was emphasized to the Court. A more moderate plan, based on the uncertainty inherent in the LSAT exam score and the inferiority of the primary and secondary education most minorities have received is proposed. Under it, no majority applicant will be passed over by a minority applicant who’s LSAT score is not within the uncertainty band of their own score. It leads to about twice as many minorities being admitted than a plan which admitted students solely on the basis of their LSAT and GPA but less than one-half as many students as the one used by the Michigan Law School. Comparing the admissions resulting from the two plans clarifies the large role an applicant’s race and ethnic status had in the Law School’s admission policy. Affirmative action plans similar to the proposed one would enable Universities to obtain the benefits of a more diverse student body without “unduly harming” applicants from non-minority groups.
