Their [universities'] holistic approach is part of a forward-looking effort to obtain the educational benefits of diversity. The look to race as but one element of this further goal, coupled with individualized consideration, steers university admissions away from a quota system. Grutter teaches that so long as a university considers race in a holistic and individualized manner, and not as part of a quota or fixed-point system, courts must afford a measure of deference to the university's good faith determination that certain race-conscious measures are necessary to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, including attaining critical mass in minority enrollment.

Affirmative action continues to be a controversial issue. In August, the Supreme Court of California [official website] held that a state ban on preferential hiring practices for minorities and women does not violate [JURIST report] the federal Constitution [text]. In April 2009, California Attorney General Jerry Brown [official website] said [opinion letter, PDF] that portions of Proposition 209 [text], an amendment to the California Constitution [text] banning the use of affirmative action for state hiring, contracting, or university admission, may violate the US Constitution [JURIST report]. In November 2008, Colorado voters narrowly rejected [JURIST report] a ballot measure [Amendment 46 text and materials] to prohibit governmental agencies from discriminating or granting preferences on the basis of race and sex. A nearly identical measure passed [JURIST report] in Nebraska. In 2006, Michigan voters approved [JURIST report] a similar state constitutional amendment, which was upheld [JURIST report] in March 2008 by a federal district judge in a lawsuit alleging that such an affirmative action ban violated the US Constitution.