The United States Supreme Court has accepted a case that could
determine whether colleges can give preference to minority
applicants in admissions decisions.
By June of 2003 the court will decide if three white students
were unconstitutionally denied admission to the University of
Michigan because the school’s affirmative action policies
discriminated against them.
The case could affect admissions policies nationwide, but will
not have an effect on the University of California’s
admissions process.
The use of affirmative action based on race, gender and
ethnicity was made illegal in California’s public entities in
1996 by Proposition 209. The year before, the UC Regents passed
SP-1, banning race in admissions for the UC. The policy was
symbolically rescinded in 2001, but the UC still falls under
209.
While UC press aide Hanan Eisenman said the court’s
decision will not affect UC admissions, campus activists are trying
to use the case to restore affirmative action.
“We need to show that students of color are being
re-segregated to second-tier schools in the UC system,” said
Erika Dowdell, a first-year law student at UCLA.
Dowdell attended the University of Michigan as an undergraduate
before coming to UCLA.
The Michigan case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to ban
the use of affirmative action in higher education or place limits
on how much weight is given to race.
Supporters of affirmative action, including Dowdell, say it is
necessary to ensure that the nation’s top universities are as
diverse as the nation.
Opponents say the program gives minority students unfair
preferences while hurting more qualified white students.
“I’m optimistic that a decision will come down
within the next six or seven months that will essentially outlaw
preferences based on race, gender or ethnicity,” UC Regent
Ward Connerly, who spearheaded both the SP-1 and Proposition 209
efforts.
Proposition 209 is seen by many pro-affirmative action activists
as the beginning of a nationwide trend. Shortly after it was
passed, Connerly led a successful anti-affirmative action campaign
in Washington state. Additionally, courts in Texas have declared
consideration of race in college admissions unconstitutional.
The University of Michigan’s Law School admissions
process, which does take race into account, was upheld by a divided
appeals court in May, which said the Constitution allows
universities to use affirmative action as long as quotas are not
implemented.
A similar case regarding the University of Michigan’s
undergraduate admissions process was still pending before the
appeals court when the Supreme Court made its announcement to hear
both cases simultaneously.
The high court utilized a rarely used power to combine the two
cases and rule on both at once without waiting for a ruling by the
lower court in the case regarding undergraduate admissions.
Dowdell testified in the cases, and is organizing a student
march on Washington, D.C. for when the Supreme Court hears the
case.
“I brought to life the experiences that many inner city
students face,” Dowdell said. “I talked about the
segregation that still exists.”
She is currently trying to get UCLA students to teach the
community about affirmative action in an attempt to rally
support.
Popular support for affirmative action could influence the
court’s decision in this case, as it has with previous cases,
Dowdell said.
Connerly agreed that the court will follow what happens in the
nation, but said the nation is going in a different direction.
“Over the last 10 years the nation is maturing so much
that the public feels it is no longer appropriate to use race to
benefit a black or Latino student and hurt a white or Asian
student,” Connerly said.
“It’s an idea whose time has come and passed,”
Connerly added.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a case regarding
affirmative action in university admissions was the Bakke v. UC
Regents case of 1978.
In that case, Allan Bakke sued UC Davis’ Medical School
after he, a white male, was denied admission while the school
accepted minorities with lower test scores under a special
program.
The Supreme Court has not heard any cases on affirmative action
since the Bakke case, when it ruled by a 5-4 vote that
consideration of race in admissions is legal as long as racial
quotas are not used. Because UC Davis used quotas, Bakke was
granted admission.
Courts around the country have set different rules regarding
affirmative action since then, and the Supreme Court had refused to
make further rulings, including refusing to hear a case claiming
Proposition 209 was unconstitutional.
“I think its taken so long (for another case to be heard)
because this is a very unsettled territory,” Connerly said.
“The courts want to do the right thing with regard to race,
just as we all do.”
Connerly is currently campaigning for the Racial Privacy
Initiative, which would prevent the state from collecting most
forms of race-based data.
The initiative, slated for the 2004 ballot, has been criticized
by researchers and academics who argue it would hinder research and
the university’s outreach efforts.