|
Court issues split decisions on affirmative action
Law school policy upheld; undergrad program overturned
CNN.com June 23, 2003
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In separate decisions the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.
The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan's undergraduate programs. The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.
The law school program was upheld by a vote of 5-4, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote by siding with more liberal jurists. The undergraduate program was overturned 6-3.
The two Michigan cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions. But the court decision likely will have an impact on private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world, all trying to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.
"This is a wonderful, wonderful day -- a victory for all of higher education, because what it means at its core is that affirmative action may still be used and the court's given us a road map to get there," said University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. "So we're very, very excited and very pleased."
The court also "gave us a road map for changing our undergraduate system," she added. "The central principle is that affirmative action may be used -- and that's what we were fighting for."
Law school plan follows earlier decision
The University of Michigan cases were the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.
The court ruled that the law school policy, which considered race as a factor in admissions but did not assign specific weight to it, did not violate the equal protections law, while the undergraduate policy did.
Justices considered whether states have a "compelling interest" in promoting a diverse student body, or whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment forbids giving one group advantages over another.
The law school ruling follows the path the court set a generation ago, when it outlawed quotas but still left room for schools to improve the odds for minority applicants.
The Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice O'Connor wrote.
The Bush administration has said it opposes the university's admissions policy, while dozens of top corporations are among the school's supporters.
Crux of the cases
Two white women were at the center of the cases. Jennifer Gratz was a top high school student in suburban Detroit in 1995, when Michigan rejected her application. Barbara Grutter, a
49-year-old mother of two, ran her own consulting business. Michigan's prestigious law school rejected her application in 1997.
The university acknowledges it uses race as a factor in admissions, relying on a complicated point scale to rate applicants. Grades and academics are most important, but members of "under-represented" racial and ethic minority groups receive extra points, as do children of alumni, athletes and men enrolling in nursing programs. Gratz's lawyers call the points granted for race a "super bonus," equivalent to a full grade point on a student's GPA.
The school's undergraduate program receives 25,000 applications each year and accepts 5,000. African-Americans comprise about 9 percent of this year's freshman class, Latinos 6 percent and Native Americans about 2 percent.
The University of Michigan admission policy has been in place more than a decade.
"We educate a well-prepared, diverse work force," university President Mary Sue Coleman said. "The students who learn in diverse classrooms know how to take that cross-cultural understanding into America's industries."
Designed to right a wrong
The justices were aware of the attention surrounding the case. The court received a record number of supporting briefs, totaling in the hundreds.
Many court observers said the justices sensed the time was right to re-examine an unresolved issue that has been percolating for a generation.
"These represent the most significant civil rights cases the Supreme Court will have decided in the last quarter-century," said Ted Shaw, NAACP associate counsel. "This issue is nothing less than whether the doors of opportunity remain open for students of color."
Affirmative action programs were created to correct racial and cultural discrimination, dating from the days of slavery and public segregation. Advocates on both sides agree that the initiatives have proven controversial, and enforcement has been often been random and confusing.
One reason for the confusion was the Supreme Court's ambiguous ruling in the 1978 Bakke case, the last time the court addressed affirmative action in public universities. The court at the time ruled the University of California at Davis could not hold a quota of places for minorities. The late Justice Lewis Powell wrote in the case, "The goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race ... under some circumstances."
Since then, federal courts have offered conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of affirmative action. In legal briefs filed with the court, lawyers from both sides argued that it is time for the justices to give a clear, definitive ruling.
The cases are Grutter v. Bollinger (case No. 02-0241) involving the University of Michigan's law school; and Gratz v. Bollinger (No. 02-0516) involving the undergraduate program.
Submitted by:
Messrs. John Crowell Campbell & Richard John Harrison, Co-Founders &
Sponsors of Gay & Lesbian Political Action & Support Group (GayPASG@att.net),
& the Task Force for Same-Sex Marriage. Visit www.gaypasg.org
for mission statements. Edward G. Martone, Political Advisor |
