TALKING POINTS FROM EJS, QUOTES FROM DECISION
Updated June 23, 2003

Talking Points from EJS:

• This is a great victory for America.
• Our nation is better and stronger today because the Supreme Court reiterated America's commitment to affirmative action.
• Colleges and universities can continue to seek diversity in admitting students; they just can't use the approach taken by the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions office.
• Schools can maintain diverse student bodies by screening applications more rigorously to ensure that race and ethnicity are among factors considered in admissions decisions.
• The Court upheld the argument that the government has a compelling interest in promoting diversity in education and the workplace.
• Although the Court rejected the Michigan undergrad point system, it upheld the law school approach thus reaffirming its commitment to affirmative action.
• The Court did not reject affirmative action, it rejected the specific scoring system of the undergraduate school.
• Higher Education:
  This decision recognizes that a diverse and racially integrated campus benefits all students. It also recognizes that America's national security and American businesses benefit by recruiting men and women from diverse races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.
• National Security/Military:
  The Court recognizes that diversity and racial integration are essential to a smoothly functioning, high quality military. Diversity at the undergraduate level is needed to ensure diversity in ROTC programs and then eventually in officers' ranks.
• Economy:
  The Court understands that a diverse and racially integrated workforce is essential for US companies to compete in an increasingly global economy. US companies must be able to access a diverse pool of talented students from the best schools so that they can train, promote, and build a high caliber workforce capable of meeting the diverse needs of customers in the global marketplace.

California-specific Talking Points

Note: Anyone in California who can speak as an advocate should use this decision to show the bankruptcy of Connerly's new initiative (CRENO/Race Classification Initiative).

• U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the underlying basis for Ward Connerly's initiative - that we have already achieved colorblind society. Voters must reject this as well.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that we do not yet have a colorblind society. Ward Connerly's initiative is on the wrong track and must be derailed.
  

Quotes from Supreme Court's Decision in Grutter:

"Today, we hold that the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body."

"Our conclusion that the Law School has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission . . . "

"[T]he Law School's admissions policy promotes 'cross-racial understanding,' helps to break down racial stereotypes, and 'enables [students] to better understand persons of different races.' . . . These benefits are 'important and laudable,' because 'classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening and interesting' when the students have 'the greatest possible variety of backgrounds.' "

"In addition to the expert studies and reports entered into evidence at trial, numerous studies show that student body diversity promotes learning outcomes, and 'better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals.' . . . "

"These benefits are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints."

"We have repeatedly acknowledged the overriding importance of preparing students for work and citizenship, describing education as pivotal to 'sustaining our political and cultural heritage' with a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of society. . . . This Court has long recognized that 'education ... is the very foundation of good citizenship.' Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 493 (1954). For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity through public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity. . . . Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized."

"In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training."

"With respect to the use of race itself, all underrepresented minority students admitted by the Law School have been deemed qualified. By virtue of our Nation's struggle with racial inequality, such students are both likely to have experiences of particular importance to the Law School's mission, and less likely to be admitted in meaningful numbers on criteria that ignore those experiences. "

"In summary, the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."