During the debate over the next Supreme Court nomination to be
made by President Bush, many recognize Sandra Day
O’Connor’s role as an important figure in the Supreme
Court’s rulings on education during her term.
O’Connor, the swing vote in several cases, became the most
powerful member of the court, said Andrew Koppelman, professor of
law and political science at Northwestern Law.
Other members of the Supreme Court were more predictable in
their voting patterns, and lawyers would direct their cases almost
specifically at O’Connor during hearings, he said.
UCLA Law Professor John Varat said that O’Connor
influenced education mostly through her work with affirmative
action.
Most recently, O’Connor wrote the opinion in the 2003 case
regarding the admissions policies of the University of Michigan Law
School.
O’Connor provided the swing vote in that case, siding with
liberal jurists, to upholding the right to consider race in
admissions with the purpose of maintaining a diverse student
body.
O’Connor delivered the court’s opinion, stating that
“in the context of its individualized inquiry into the
possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law
School’s race-conscious admissions program does not unduly
harm non-minority applicants.”
Although the UC formerly used various methods of affirmative
action in its admissions, consideration of race or ethnicity by
state agencies, including the UC, was banned after the passage of
Proposition 209 by voters in 1996, so the Michigan ruling did not
affect the admissions policies of UCLA.
While on the Supreme Court, O’Connor was known as a
centrist and a supporter of affirmative action.
The ruling in the Michigan case was a step in support of
affirmative action policies in colleges, in contrast to the 1977
Bakke case, held four years before her appointment.
In that case, the Regents of the University of California were
forced to remove racial quotas from admissions procedures at the UC
Medical School at Davis, although race was affirmed as a
constitutionally permissible criterion for universities to
consider.
O’Connor agreed with this policy, and referred to the
Bakke case in her opinion statement for the University of Michigan
case, in order to defend educational interest in diversity.
“Student body diversity is a compelling state interest
that can justify the use of race in university admissions,”
O’Connor said.
In her many decisions on education, O’Connor conveyed her
belief that diversity is a priority within all colleges and
universities.
In the court decision Mitchell v. Helms in 2000, O’Connor
wrote in concurrence with a decision to allow funding from Chapter
2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 into
private schools in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, where about 30
percent of the funds went to religiously-affiliated private
schools.
The education choice program developed by the Cleveland City
School District, which provided financial support to students in
order to attend religious or secular private schools, was another
education case where O’Connor’s vote was key.
In the 2002 case, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, O’Connor was
again the swing vote in a case determining whether or not tuition
assistance provided to families violated the First Amendment.
In these cases, O’Connor was the one justice who had not
predetermined her position, and the rulings hinged on her support
or opposition.
O’Connor joined the court’s opinion, saying that the
program did not give funds to support religiously-based schools,
but only to students to allow their families to choose the proper
schooling for their children.