The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, answered this question in the affirmative. The Court held, "The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] 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."
The Supreme Court could decide this week to reconsider its ruling in Grutter. At issue is a lawsuit brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleges she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin. The Supreme Court will discuss the case in its closed-door-conferences this week and could announce as early as Friday whether it will add the case to next term's docket. Edward Blum, executive director of the Project on Fair Representation, a nonprofit legal defense foundation that has provided legal counsel for Fisher says, "This case presents the court with an opportunity to clarify the boundaries of race preferences in higher education, or even reconsider whether race should be permitted at all under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection." Larry Purdy, who represented Barbara Grutter in her challenge to the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, said that the ruling should be overturned. Further, Purdy says, "I don’t think that diversity is a sufficiently compelling reason to use race."
Is diversity a sufficiently compelling reason to use race in admissions decisions? Is there a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits from a diverse student body? Is the court’s holding in Grutter inconsistent with the principles of Brown v. Board of Education?