... Summer 2002

Affirmative action is upheld in Law School admissions case
( Continued from previous page)

The majority, in rebuttal to Boggs, argued: "While it is true that the Law School's policy is based upon its desire to achieve a diverse student body, the very reason that the Law School is in need of a program to create a diverse environment is because the discrimination faced by African Americans and other minorities throughout the educational process has not produce a diverse student body in the normal course of things. Diversity in education, at its base, is the desegregation of a historically segregated population."

While the nation awaited the 6th Circuit's ruling in the companion case challenging affirmative action in U-M's undergraduate admissions policy (Gratz v. Bollinger), major news media response to the Law School case was heavy. Most editorials and opinion essays supported the May ruling and U-M goals. Some Responses to the decision

The Boston Globe's editorial (May 16), "Fairness Affirmed," said Barbara Grutter's claim that the Law School should have admitted her is one that "understandably makes many people's blood boil. Gloomy jokes sum up the thinking: Pay your taxes, stay out of trouble and some Black kid from the inner city will snatch your place in college or graduate school.There is an irony that the courts have not addressed. White students sue when they are denied admission to particular schools. Largely ignored is the fact that many minority students face an unfair system from first grade through high school. Poor and minority students often go to underfunded schools that don't have the resources to provide a broad education."

The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch (May 21) supported the dissenting opinion: "Will the U.S. Supreme Court please settle the issue of racial preferences in college admissions? [P]ublic universities claim that having the 'right' racial mix on campus enriches the education of all students and therefore universities should be able to exclude or accept applicants on the basis of race. As The Dispatch has pointed out before, a landlord would be hauled into court for turning away apartment seekers on the basis of ethnicity in the name of creating the 'right' racial mix in his building. No one should have, and no one can be trusted with, the power to discriminate on the basis of race. The Supreme Court should step in to sort out the conflicting rulings, and it should do so by declaring once and for all that whatever the benefits of educational diversity may be, they cannot trump the bedrock principle of the American founding [fathers], that all citizens must be treated equally by their government."

The Washington Post (May 16) said: "Nobody ought to be comfortable with government's treating people differently because of race, even if for noble purposes. The diversity of a university class is, in any event, a gauzy kind of interest, one whose benefits are diffuse and difficult to measure. Yet the courts should not underestimate diversity's importance to education in a multiethnic democratic society. This consideration makes these cases profoundly different from the other affirmative action issues the court has confronted in recent years. For the high court to insist on purely race-blind admissions would be a radical and destructive step."

In a guest editorial in the National Review (May 17), Roger Clegg, general council of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said: "[It is] very likely that at least four of the nine justices-only four votes are required for the Supreme Court to grant review-will be skeptical about the Sixth Circuit's decision. Five justices have been very reluctant in recent years to allow racial and ethnic discrimination by the government or state institutions. There is also the little matter of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which flatly bars any racial and ethnic discrimination by an entity, like the University of Michigan, that gets federal money."

The New York Times (May 15) editorialized that the ruling "has shown that carefully tailored policies that avoid quotas can still include race as one factor among many in the admissions equation. The court praised the Michigan plan for its fairness and sensitivity, noting that, though race and ethnicity were potential 'plus factors,' they did not foreclose competition between minority and non-minority students."

On May 16, the Christian Science Monitor said: "The Michigan case-probably twinned with a similar case involving undergraduate admissions at the same university-will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify matters. Ways to continue expanding educational opportunity must be found. Some states are admitting a certain percentage of top graduates from each of their high schools to their university systems. Elementary and secondary schooling also must be strengthened to prepare a wider range of young Americans for college. Whatever the courts decide, ensuring greater access to education should remain a clear national goal."

The Michigan Daily (May 15): "While the defense of the University's policies has primarily been the work of legal experts and faculty, the action of student intervenors proved to be a crucial element in the 6th Circuit's decision. The court explicitly mentioned the involvement of the student intervenors as a reason for overturning Judge [Bernard] Friedman's decision. Their testimony concerning the conditions in Michigan's K-12 educational system helped reveal the obstacles that many students must conquer to gain acceptance to the University. Although the cases often seem alienating and appear as though they are beyond the control of individual students, the example of the intervenors shows that active involvement can help determine a case's outcome and establish legal precedent. The use of race in admissions is now acceptable in the four states of the 6th Circuit-Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan-because of student activism and advocacy."