High court declines to address Hopwood High court declines to address Hopwood
Race still can't be factor in college admissions
06/26/2001 By Christy Hoppe
The Dallas Morning
AUSTIN--The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied Texas a hearing on the Hopwood case in which a lower court ordered a ban on affirmative-action programs in admissions, financial aid and faculty hiring at state universities.
The court's refusal means that Texas schools must continue to ignore race as a factor in their decisions, as they have for five years. But lawyers on all sides agree that Monday's decision doesn't resolve the issue.
Last month, the Supreme Court also refused to hear a case from Washington state, where the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided contrary to the Hopwood decision. In that case, the appeals court said university administrators could weigh race as a factor. Allowing conflicting appellate court decisions to stand means the role of affirmative action in higher education will remain murky at least for several years, experts said.
They believe the Supreme Court might yet tackle the affirmative-action issue in university cases from Michigan and Georgia that are working their way through the courts. "At some point, the court will take a case involving these issues and will resolve them for the nation as a whole," University of Texas president Larry Faulkner said.
"For now, we will keep searching for creative and legal ways to serve all the populations of Texas," he said. The Texas case began in 1992, when four white students--led by plaintiff Cheryl Hopwood--sued after being denied admission to the UT law school. In March 1996, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that UT's consideration of race, even as one factor among many, was unconstitutional.
Since then, Texas schools have struggled to recruit minority students without earmarked scholarships or financial aid, especially when out-of-state universities have been allowed to continue using such incentives. The Supreme Court initially refused to hear the Hopwood case in June 1996, and the case was sent down to U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin to resolve several issues.
He found in March 1998 that none of the four white students would have been admitted to the UT law school if it had used race-neutral criteria and awarded the students $1 each in damages.
He also ordered the ban on affirmative-action programs. It was this ban that the state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. David Rogers, one of the original plaintiffs, said he was pleased the Supreme Court refused to hear his case, which he interprets as support for the 5th Circuit's opinion that any decision favoring one race over another is wrong.
"I think even the hardest heads over at the attorney general's office and UT should be recognizing that what they were doing was unconstitutional," he said. Mr. Rogers, who has just completed Texas Tech University law school, said he hopes the state will drop the case and accept the 5th Circuit's decision. Anything else would waste taxpayer money, he said. His attorney, Steven Smith of Austin, said that the conflict between courts is frustrating and he thinks that "the question needs a national answer."
But with the Supreme Court's second refusal to consider the Hopwood case, Mr. Smith said, he believes Texas should resign itself to the outcome. "It's coming up on the ninth anniversary. It's our position the case is over," he said. Douglas Laycock, a UT law professor who's part of the university's legal team, said the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case is not a final decision and is never a true indication of which way the court is leaning.
"Today's order resolves nothing," he said. Mr. Laycock said the order could mean that the Hopwood case is procedurally flawed, or "maybe they'd rather have the Michigan case, or they might not be ready to decide yet."
He said UT is still exploring its legal options and could return to Judge Sparks, who has been directed by the 5th Circuit to expound upon his legal reasoning for his 1998 ban on affirmative-action programs. If so, the case could return to the Supreme Court for a third time.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page