In what some affirmative action-supporters are hailing as a huge
victory, a divided Supreme Court ruled that universities can give
minority applicants an edge in the admittance process ““
within certain limits.
The decision came from two separate rulings involving the
University of Michigan, which has been embroiled in an affirmative
action lawsuit since 1997. The university uses a point system to
determine admissions criteria in its College of Literature, Science
and the Arts, with minority applicants receiving bonus points.
The Supreme Court overturned Michigan’s specific point
system criteria with a vote of 6-3, but upheld a different program
at the university’s law school that considers race to a
lesser degree.
The law school program was upheld by a tight vote of 5-4.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the swing vote, siding with
the more liberal justices.
The ruling affects tax-supported schools, such as private
schools and other institutions, that have been trying to
simultaneously raise minority enrollment and avoid violating the
Constitution’s guarantee against discrimination.
O’Connor, citing the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education
decision of 1951 which desegregated schools, said all individuals,
regardless of ethnicity, are entitled to an education, which in
turn makes them better citizens.
“Effective participation by members of all racial and
ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the
dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized,” she
wrote for the majority opinion in the law school decision.
The university had defended its law school program, saying it
wished to achieve a “critical mass” of minority
students to facilitate interaction between students from different
backgrounds.
Michigan also said that it only admits academically qualified
students into its program, regardless of race.
Not all the justices believed the university’s defense.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the dissenting opinion
for the law school case, dismissed the claims of critical mass as a
“veil” that hid a “naked effort to achieve racial
balancing.”
In its other decision, the court determined that
Michigan’s 150-point index for screening applicants, which
gave an automatic 20 points to minority applicants, was not the
proper way to achieve racial diversity.
Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion for the case, said the
points policy was “not narrowly tailored to achieve the
interest in educational diversity” that Michigan claimed to
justify its system.
The controversy at Michigan was sparked by two white students of
good academic standing who were both denied admittance to the
university. Though both students have since graduated from other
colleges, their case has received strong support from conservative
legal groups, some law professors, and affirmative action
opponents.
The Bush administration sided with the students but did not call
for an end to affirmative action.
Despite the ruling on the undergraduate system, affirmative
action-supporters have lauded the decision as a landmark triumph
defending affirmative action’s core integrity, and as a
decision with tremendous implications for the rest of the
nation.
Ronald Cruz, a graduate student of education at UC Berkeley and
a proponent of affirmative action who was in Michigan for the
ruling, called the decision a “stunning victory” and
said it would provide a catalyst for a nationwide mobilization
defending affirmative action.
“We are launching a campaign to reverse the attack on
affirmative action and to realize the full promise of Brown v.
Board of Education,” he said. “And I’m confident
we can win.”
Cruz is also an organizer with the Coalition to Defend
Affirmative Action and Integration and Fight for Equality by Any
Means Necessary.
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman called the
decision “a resounding affirmation that will be heard across
the land from our college classrooms to our corporate
boardrooms.”
The Supreme Court last ruled on affirmative action in higher
education in 1978, when the court banned the use of racial quotas
at the University of California at Davis, but left open other
routes for universities to achieve diversity.
Affirmative action opponents had hoped the Supreme Court ““
which many consider to be more conservative than it was in 1978
““ would use the Michigan case as an opportunity to ban the
consideration of race in other institutions as well.
Instead, the decision seems to have set opponents back on their
heels.
UC Regent Ward Connerly, a strong opponent of affirmative
action, said the two court decisions were confusing and only laid
the groundwork for more uncertainty regarding the uses of
affirmative action.
“These conflicting decisions consign our nation to another
generation of litigation and agony about the constitutionally
permissible uses of “˜race,'” he said in a
statement issued on behalf of the American Civil Rights Institute,
which opposes affirmative action.
Connerly is also one of the sponsors of the Classification by
Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin initiative, which would
prohibit the state from collecting data on state employees or
students at California state institutions. CRECNO will be on the
March 2004 ballot.
It is not clear how much the decision will affect California,
where Proposition 209 ““ which prohibits the consideration of
race as a factor in hiring and admitting individuals to state
institutions ““Â is still in effect.
However, UCLA law Professor Jerry Kang said that just as
Proposition 209 was passed by a vote, it can also be struck down by
vote, a possibility he said may have increased
“substantially” because of the Michigan decision.
Kang also said the message some Californians may take from the
decision is that “a well-designed affirmative action program
does not violate anyone’s equal protection rights.”
Cruz said with this new ruling, Proposition 209 now puts
California out of step with the rest of the nation in terms of
diversity.
“Look at Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a de facto segregated
city. It’s a majority Latino population, but the vast
majority of them are denied the opportunity to an education,”
he said.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.