Over the past fifteen years, public charter schools have emerged as an influential, if controversial, school choice model. Charter schools seek to reform America's underperforming public education system by stimulating curricular innovation, increasing parental and community involvement in education, and competing with traditional public schools. However, charter schools experience intense levels of segregation and racial isolation that exceed the already troubling levels in traditional public schools. In response to this trend, eleven states have enacted racial balancing statutes that require charter schools to use race and racial classifications to achieve racially diverse student bodies. This Note appraises the constitutionality of charter school racial balancing laws in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Grutter v. Bollinger that diversity is a compelling interest in higher education. Careful examination of charter school racial balancing provisions reveals that, on the basis of their characteristics, these laws are either "Strong" or "Weak." Although all eleven states that mandate racial balancing in charter schools possess a constitutionally compelling interest in diversity as articulated in Grutter, only the "Weak" Provisions of nine states are sufficiently narrowly tailored to survive strict scrutiny equal protection analysis. Consequently, the "Strong",racial balancing provisions of Nevada and South Carolina should be rejected as unconstitutional, and the "Weak" racial balancing provisions of the remaining nine states should be affirmed as constitutional under Grutter and the Fourteenth Amendment.