A group of UCLA law students will file a Supreme Court brief
describing their support for affirmative action today, in response
to a lawsuit over the University of Michigan’s admissions
policy.
The brief relies on their experiences at a law school with
shrinking minority enrollment in recent years.
They argue race must be considered in admissions to balance out
other factors, such as test scores, which they argue are biased
against minority applicants.
Organizers hope filing the brief will be the first of many steps
to get students involved before the Supreme Court hears oral
arguments on April 1.
“No one is actually talking to students. Everyone is just
talking about students,” said Rasheda Kilpatrick, a
third-year UCLA law student and member of Students of Color Against
Resegregation in Education.
The court will hear two cases brought by white applicants, who
allege they were denied admission to the University of
Michigan’s law or undergraduate programs while less qualified
minority applicants were admitted.
The case will likely determine the fate of affirmative action in
admissions policies across the nation.
The policies are needed to prevent resegregation in elite
schools such as UCLA’s law school, Kilpatrick said.
A student’s GPA and their score from a standardized test
called the LSAT ““ the main factors in law school admissions
““ are biased against minorities, she said.
“Relying on both scores leads to a segregated
system,” Kilpatrick said. “The LSAT is very
race-biased.”
Recent studies have shown black and Latino students average
lower scores on standardized tests than white and Asian
students.
Admissions policies are often slightly different for
undergraduates, but there are similar concerns about
underrepresented minorities having worse test scores and
grades.
“I think the issues are universal,” Kilpatrick
said.
The resulting lack of diversity hurts both minority and
non-minority students, she said.
Universities that use affirmative action claim they do it to
increase diversity, which gives all students a better college
education.
But opponents say there are other ways to increase diversity
that do not take race into account.
President Bush, in his Supreme Court brief filed last month,
highlighted race-neutral policies as a better alternative.
These policies ““ such as the University of
California’s policy of admitting all students in the top 4
percent of their high school class ““ are not mentioned in the
students’ brief.
Instead, they focus on the UC experience of being taught in a
school which does not use affirmative action.
Kilpatrick said it is important to get the students’ point
of view across, which is why students wrote the brief
themselves.
“We wanted to make sure we represented the view of
students who have been educated without affirmative action,”
Kilpatrick said.
Though UCLA students wrote the brief, they received testimonials
from students at all the law schools in the UC system.
Other groups of students, including some from UC Berkeley, sued
when the case was originally heard by the trial court and won.
This allowed students from many universities who were members of
the United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund
to intervene in the case, testifying about the need for affirmative
action.
Now they are trying to mobilize students to go to Washington for
the Supreme Court case.
“The best legal arguments alone will not suffice,”
said Ronald Cruz, a UC Berkeley student who is one of the
interveners in the Michigan case.
“What really is going to sway these judges is having
100,000 people out on the street when they hear these cases,”
Cruz added.
Kilpatrick said her group plans on having more events on campus,
leading up to the Court’s oral arguments, but nothing is
scheduled at this point.
The group is trying to get some campus student groups ““
both law student and undergraduate groups ““ involved in an
attempt to inform the student body.
“We hope students can still find the time to make their
voices heard,” Kilpatrick said.