Clarification: The original version of this article contained a confusing sentence. At a time when the University of California is not allowed to use race as a factor in admissions, UC leaders recently came out in support of a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas that is currently the subject of a Supreme Court Case.
At a time when the University of California is not allowed to use race as a factor in admissions, UC leaders recently came out in support of a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas that is currently the subject of a Supreme Court Case.
Last week, UC President Mark Yudof and the chancellors of all 10 UC campuses joined a number of higher-education institutions and civil-rights groups that submitted amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas.
Amicus curiae briefs aim to provide perspective on an issue that the parties involved in a litigation may not provide in their specific presentations in court. The information provided in the briefs can play a very important role in court cases if the justices decide to consider it, said Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor.
Under its current policy, the University of Texas automatically admits applicants who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school class, and considers race among other criteria in the admissions process, said Gary Susswein, a spokesman for the University of Texas.
The current court case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, involves a white student who alleges she was denied admission to the university in 2008 because of racial discrimination.
While it is unlikely that the court will ban all racial preferences in higher education, new restrictions and limitations on how universities can take race into account could be established as a result of the case, Sander said.
Such an instance occurred in 1978 when the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the admissions process of the Medical School of the University of California at Davis, which set aside 16 out of 100 seats for non-white students. The case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, is considered a landmark case among rulings on affirmative action and race-conscious admissions policies.
Although UC leaders support the University of Texas’ admissions policy in the amicus brief, the UC system is currently prohibited from acknowledging race in its own admission decisions because of Proposition 209, said Dianne Klein, a university spokeswoman. The proposition is a 15-year-old voter-approved ban that formally forbids state-funded institutions in California from using race or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring decisions.
In the UC’s brief, Yudof and others argue that the race-neutral measures, which are a part of a “holistic” approach, implemented within the UC since Proposition 209 was passed to ensure diversity in its student body ““ like taking socioeconomic factors into consideration, for example ““ have kept the university’s student body from representing the diversity of the California population.
The brief cites the decrease in the percentage of African Americans in the entering class at UCLA from 7.4 percent in 1995 to 3.5 percent in 1998 as an example of how the University’s diversity was stunted as a result of Proposition 209.
“The fact is, our campuses continue to become increasingly selective, and with this, the problem of maintaining diversity without taking race into account is exacerbated,” said David Birnbaum, who is part of the UC’s General Counsel. The UC General Counsel provides legal services, such as representation and legal advice, to the university and reports jointly to the UC Board of Regents and the UC President.
A team of attorneys from the UC General Counsel helped to draft the brief, Birnbaum said.
Although more briefs will likely be submitted to the Supreme Court, the UC brief stands out because both the UC and the UT are “elite” public university systems, which means the UC can offer particularly important insight, said Mitchell Chang, a professor at the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
“We provide a very important experiential perspective on what happens after we take away race-conscious admissions,” said Chang, who is an expert on diversity-related initiatives on college campuses. “Educators are largely supportive of affirmative action because we see it play out in the classroom every day.”
President Barack Obama’s administration and California Attorney General Kamala Harris also recently submitted legal briefs supporting the University of Texas admissions policy.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments for the Fisher case in early October.
The ruling on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin will be the Supreme Court’s first ruling on affirmative action in higher education since 2003, when the court upheld the right to consider race in college admissions in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, involving the University of Michigan Law School.
The composition of the court has changed since 2003 toward a more conservative makeup under Chief Justice John Roberts, Sander said.
Regardless of the court’s ruling on the University of Texas case, the UC will continue to be prohibited from considering race in its admissions because of the state’s own legislation, Klein said.