Court to quickly provide U-M tape Court to quickly provide U-M tape
Widespread interest results in unusual move
March 28, 2003
BY MARYANNE GEORGE AND STEVE HENDERSON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS
There was little question about the huge interest in the legal challenge to the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policies. But the U.S. Supreme Court certified even before it hears oral arguments in the case Tuesday just how important the case is. On Thursday, the court announced it will release an audiotape of the two-hour hearing minutes after it concludes.
The court has done that only one other time: in Bush v. Gore, the case which decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Typically, tapes of oral arguments aren't released until the end of the court term. Then they go to the National Archives, which makes them available to the public. Media organizations have pressured the court for years to open its hearings to audio recordings and cameras. In a news release, the court said it decided to release a tape because of the high degree of public interest. Thousands of demonstrators are expected to stand outside the court during the oral arguments, and streets are being closed to accommodate the crowd.
John Payton, a lawyer presenting U-M's case for keeping the undergraduate admissions system, praised the decision. "It's great," Payton said. "This is something an awful lot of people have an interest in. There is nothing like hearing the arguments yourself rather than the press telling you what someone said." It will be difficult for people who do not know the justices' voices to know who is speaking, a common complaint in the Bush case, said Susan Low Bloch, a Georgetown University law professor and Supreme Court expert.
"They don't like the video idea, because I think they want to maintain their low profile," Bloch said. "But I'm kind of surprised they even agreed to do what they did in the Bush case. In general, they like to be fairly anonymous." Bloch said the court should just broadcast a videotape. "The court is an important institution and an impressive one," she said. "It would be good for the people to see it.
But I don't think this group will change its mind." Miranda Massie, an attorney for minority students who intervened as defendants in a case against the law school admissions policy, said the tape will be incomplete without the students' voices. The students are arguing that past discrimination at U-M and bias in the admissions process justifies the use of race. U-M is arguing that diverse campuses improve education for all students. The justices refused to grant a rare exception to allow the students time to present their arguments on Tuesday.
Lawyers for U-M say they need the full 30 minutes to present their arguments in each case and refused to relinquish any time. The Rev. Milton Henry, a minister and lawyer who represents minority student intervenors in the undergraduate case, said the decision is an attempt by justices to rectify the public's concern about the cases. "They want to sterilize this case and issue a political decision," he said.
"They ought to open the court and extend the proceedings with closed circuit television in other parts of the building." Three white applicants sued U-M in 1997 claiming they were denied admission in favor of less-qualified minorities.
Lawyers for the applicants could not be reached for comment Thursday. The court is expected to issue a decision by June that will affect college admissions throughout the country.
Contact MARYANNE GEORGE at mageorge@freepress.com.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page