SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Affirmative Refraction: Grutter v. Bollinger Through the Lens of the Case of the Speluncean Explorers

Paul L. Caron
University of Cincinnati - College of Law

Rafael Gely
University of Missouri School of Law



Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 21, p. 65, 2004

Abstract:     
This Article looks at the Supreme Court's recent decision on the use of race in law school admissions through the lens of the famous hypothetical about human cannibalism constructed by Lon Fuller (62 Harv. L. Rev. 616 (1949)). The hypothetical has challenged law students and legal scholars for over half a century, and in recent years scholars have issued dozens of new "opinions" to take into account contemporary legal theories (including symposia in 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1834 (1999) and 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1731 (1993)). This Article is the first to take the opposite approach and view a real-life legal issue through the eyes of the fictional Justices in The Case of the Speluncean Explorers.

We argue that the various opinions in Grutter find their intellectual forebears in the opinions in The Case of the Speluncean Explorers. For all of the heat and light generated by Grutter, the opinions merely mark another way station in the centuries-old debate among competing jurisprudential philosophies of the role of law and government. By examining the Grutter opinions in the context of this rich jurisprudential tradition, we hope to elevate much of the current debate about the case, in which labels like "liberal" and "conservative" are hurled about like epithets, toward a more sophisticated understanding of how the various approaches of the Justices embody alternative views of the proper judicial function in our democratic system.

The Article introduces a novel jurisprudential approach to judicial decision-making ­ what we refer to as a "jurisprudence of humility." Building on the recent work of ideologically diverse scholars, we argue that a jurisprudence of humility recognizes that judges and lawyers hold no monopoly on wisdom and that, in certain situations, institutions other than courts may be better positioned to resolve a particular issue. This jurisprudence of humility construct enables us to draw some rather surprising connections between The Case of the Speluncean Explorers and Grutter and span the gulf in the legal literature between statutory construction and constitutional interpretation.

Keywords: Affirmative Action, Jurisprudence, Judicial Humility

JEL Classifications: K39

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: November 19, 2004 ; Last revised: February 06, 2007

Suggested Citation

Caron, Paul L. and Gely, Rafael, Affirmative Refraction: Grutter v. Bollinger Through the Lens of the Case of the Speluncean Explorers. Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 21, p. 65, 2004. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=622944


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Paul L. Caron (Contact Author)
University of Cincinnati - College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 210040
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0040
United States
513-556-0100 (Phone)
513-556-1236 (Fax)

Rafael Gely
University of Missouri School of Law ( email )
Missouri Avenue & Conley Avenue
Columbia, MO 65211
United States
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 6,914
Downloads: 440
Download Rank: 16,950

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo2 in 0.125 seconds.