Final answer:
Sandel suggests that the purpose of a university must be considered when debating affirmative action, which is true. The Supreme Court's rulings, including in Grutter v. Bollinger and Fisher v. University of Texas, have allowed for race to be one of several factors in promoting diversity in higher education, rejecting racial quotas.
Step-by-step explanation:
Michael Sandel argues that in considering affirmative action, it's crucial to address the fundamental question of a university's purpose. This is true. The debate on affirmative action revolves around whether the objective is to select the best candidates purely based on merit or to promote social goals, such as the representation of underrepresented groups. The Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue multiple times, most notably in Bakke v. California, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Fisher v. University of Texas.
In the landmark case of Grutter v. Bollinger, the use of affirmative action in the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School was upheld. It was decided that promoting diversity in higher education is a compelling governmental interest, and that considering race as one factor among many in university admissions is permissible as long as it does not involve racial quotas. This decision set an important precedent for subsequent cases, including Fisher v. University of Texas, which emphasized that any use of race in admissions must be narrowly tailored to serve the interest of diversity and subject to regular review for its effectiveness.