Skip to main content
Article
Intuition or Proof: The Social Science Justification for the Diversity Rationale in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger
Stanford Law Review (2006)
  • Justin Pidot, University of Denver
Abstract
The diversity rationale accepted by the Supreme Court as a justification for affirmative action programs rests, in part, on the empirical claim that racial diversity enhances education. This article considers the social science presented in the Michigan affirmative action cases and suggests that it may not conclusively demonstrate that increasing numeric racial diversity leads to improved education. Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court appears to have found that as a matter of fact diversity enhances education. This Article questions the propriety of such appellate fact finding and suggests that the Supreme Court's approach improperly resulted in the constitutionalization of a debated factual issue. The diversity rationale accepted by the Supreme Court as a justification for affirmative action programs rests, in part, on the empirical claim that racial diversity enhances education. This article considers the social science presented in the Michigan affirmative action cases and suggests that it may not conclusively demonstrate that increasing numeric racial diversity leads to improved education. Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court appears to have found that as a matter of fact diversity enhances education. This Article questions the propriety of such appellate fact finding and suggests that the Supreme Court's approach improperly resulted in the constitutionalization of a debated factual issue.
Publication Date
2006
Citation Information
Justin Pidot, Intuition or Proof: The Social Science Justification for the Diversity Rationale in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 761 (2001)