[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-178994-105":59,"doc-detail-178994-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","admissions-after-grutter-jerry-r-parkinson-admissions-after-grutter","ADMISSIONS AFTER GRUTTER - Jerry R. Parkinson - (Admissions After Grutter)","","The text is a legal commentary responding to the Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, addressing how diversity may be considered a compelling interest in law school admissions. The author applauds the outcome but criticizes the Court for deferring too readily to the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions process. A central concern is the continued reliance on LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs as a proxy for merit, despite claims of holistic review.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/admissions-after-grutter-jerry-r-parkinson-admissions-after-grutter/178994/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/admissions-after-grutter-jerry-r-parkinson-admissions-after-grutter/178994.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aria","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What decision does the author discuss, and why?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The author focuses on Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that diversity can be a compelling interest and may justify using race as a factor in student admissions.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the author criticize about the Court’s approach?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The author is disappointed by the Court’s extraordinary deference to the University of Michigan Law School, despite applying a strict scrutiny standard.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What is the author’s main concern about admissions criteria?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The author argues that law schools persistently use LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA as a proxy for merit, and questions how truly “holistic” the review process is.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},178994,1788334850,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},2336464648322,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2200025388227c56fec?_k=1778556882303663488","## ADMISSIONS AFTER GRUTTER\n\n# Jerry R.Parkinson\n\n## rOST of us undoubtedly are applauding the United States Supreme Court's/    D1     us uu  uLuy       ⁴PP   uu  6                                PIVIrecent decis1on in Grutter v.Bollinger,'which held in part that diversity isa compelling interest that can justify the use of race as a factor in studentadmissions.I join the chorus;it is abundantly clear to me that substantialeducational benefits are derived,both inside and outside of the classroom,from agroup of students with diverse backgrounds and characteristics.\n\nIhave a confession to make,however.I was surprised,and disappointed to somedegree,by the extraordinary deference the Court granted to the University ofMichigan Law School,despite supposedly applying a strict scrutiny standard to thelaw school's admissions practices.²I am disappointed because I had hoped that apenetrating,critical analysis by the Court in Grutter would force all of us toundertake a serious reexamination of our admissions practices.Instead,I fear thatthe Court's decis1on will encourage many of us to continue to conduct \"business asusual\"without taking advantage of the grand opportunity provided by the Michigancases to reevaluate the means by which we select our students.  \nMy fundamental concern relates to the persistent use in law schools nationwideof “the numbers”—LSAT score and undergraduate GPA—as a proxy for merit.The Supreme Court accepted the Michigan Law School's assertion that it engagedin\"a highly individualized,holistic review of each applicant's file.\"³Yet the lawschool's admissions policies explicitly stressed the importance of the numbers inthe applicant review process.The policy at issue in Grutter stated that the lawschool's “most general measure”for selecting students for admission \"is acomposite of an applicant's LSAT score and undergraduate grade point average(UGPA)(which we shall call the ‘index').\"The policy continued,“Bluntly,thehigher one's index score,the greater should be one s chances of being admitted.The lower the score,the greater the risk the candidate poses...So we expect thevast majority of those students we admit to have high index scores.”That policy  \n*Dean and Professor of Law,University of Wyoming College of Law.  \n1.123 S.Ct.2325(2003)  \n2.I was not surprised that the four dissenters accused the majority of“an unprecedented displayof deference under our strict scrutiny analysis.\"Id.at 2370(Rehnquist,C.J.,dissenting).See also id.at 2349(Scalia,J.,concurring in part and dissenting in part)(\"[D]eference does not mplyabandonment or abdication of judicial review.”)(quoting Miller-EI v.Cockrell,537 US.322,340(2003));d.at 2350(Thomas,J.,concurring in part and dissenting in part)(\"Nor does the Constitutioncountenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law School,an approach inconsistentwith the very concept of‘strict scrutiny.”);zd.at 2370(Kennedy,J.,dissenting)(\"The Court.doesnot apply strict scrutiny.\").  \n3.Id.at 2343.Indeed.this \"individualized”review Is what distinguished the law school'spolicy from the undergraduate policy that the Court held to be unconstitutional.Gratz v.Bollinger,123 S.Ct.2411,2431(2003)(O'Connor,J.,concurring).  \n4.Grutter v.Bollinger,137F Supp.2d 821,825(E.D.Mich.2001),rev den banc,288 F.3d732(6th Cir.2002),affd,123 S.Ct.2325(2003).  \n5.Id.at 826.  \nUNIVERSITY OF TOLEDOLAW REVIEW  \nwas supplemented by written guidance from the law school's admissions director,who stated that “we must begin with the numbers and go forward from there”and\"we will ultimately be swayed in any case by the strength of the numbers so itmakes sense to know what they are before one proceeds to judge the rest of thefile.”6  \nThe results of these admiss1ons practices made clear the predominance of thenumbers in selecting any given class.The district court judge who reviewed theevidence in Grutter concluded,after looking at grids of law school applicants andadmission offers,that“even a cursory review”of the","cbCaiqKiekyDZDCm","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiqKiekyDZDCm","pdf",796457,"English","# Admissions After Grutter\n## Jerry R. Parkinson\n## Diversity as a compelling interest\n## Critique of deference to the University of Michigan Law School\n## Persistent reliance on LSAT and UGPA\n## Educational opportunity disparities","[{\"question\":\"What decision does the author discuss, and why?\",\"answer\":\"The author focuses on Grutter v. Bollinger, which held that diversity can be a compelling interest and may justify using race as a factor in student admissions.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the author criticize about the Court’s approach?\",\"answer\":\"The author is disappointed by the Court’s extraordinary deference to the University of Michigan Law School, despite applying a strict scrutiny standard.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the author’s main concern about admissions criteria?\",\"answer\":\"The author argues that law schools persistently use LSAT scores and undergraduate GPA as a proxy for merit, and questions how truly “holistic” the review process is.\"}]","ADMISSIONS AFTER GRUTTER - Jerry R. Parkinson - (Admissions After Grutter) | PDF",23]