Appeals
court rules U-M law school admission policy is legal Appeals
court rules U-M law school admission policy is legal
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
BY MARYANNE GEORGE FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The University of Michigan law school's race-conscious admissions policy is legal, an appeals court ruled 5-4 on Tuesday, turning an intense and lengthy campus controversy on its head. ``We find that the Law School has a compelling state interest in achieving a diverse student body,'' the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit wrote in its opinion.
The court cited testimony from school officials which assured them that, ``In considering race and ethnicity, the Law School does not set aside or reserve seats for under-represented minority students.'' The decision reversed a ruling by a federal district judge in Detroit. U-M had argued that race is one of many factors in its admissions process and that diversity improves the education of all students.
The university had spent millions of dollars defending that argument since the case was filed in 1997. ``This is a great day for the University of Michigan and all of higher education,'' said Marvin Krislov, U-M general counsel. ``The court recognizes that diversity brings benefits for majority and minority students and the law school policy complies.
The court recognizes that diversity is a compelling state interest and that our policy is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.'' The litigants in the case had said they would appeal to the Supreme Court if they lost in the Sixth Circuit. They were not available for comment early Tuesday. The lawsuit against the U-M Law School was filed Dec. 3, 1997 by Barbara Grutter, 48, of Plymouth Township, who claimed she was denied admission in favor of less-qualified minorities.
A similar lawsuit against U-M's undergraduate admissions policies was filed on Oct. 14, 1997 by Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher. The court is considering that case but did not release a decision on it Tuesday. In both cases the plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm in Washington D.C.
The two cases were consolidated by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were heard Dec. 6, by the court's entire nine-judge panel. It was the first university admissions case to be heard by a full panel. Similar cases in Texas, Washington and Georgia were heard by three-judge panels. Six of the judges hearing the U-M cases were appointed by Democratic presidents, three by Republicans.
At the district court level, two judges reached opposite conclusions on the two U-M cases. U-M essentially won in the undergraduate case, while the plaintiffs succeeded in the law school case. The conflicting rulings, the extensive factual record made by the University of Michigan and the Center for Individual Rights, and the fact that appeals in similar cases in Georgia, Texas and Washington have either been refused by the high court or abandoned by the universities increase the chances for the U-M cases to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal scholars say.
Last year, the high court refused to hear an appeal of a U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that struck down the use of race as an admissions factor at the University of Texas. The court also refused to hear a similar case, known as the Hopwood case, in 1996. The high court also refused last year to review a decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the use of race in admissions at the University of Washington law school.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last August struck down the use of race in admissions in a University of Georgia case. However, university officials decided to change the admissions policies rather than appeal the case to the high court. Resolving conflicting rulings by appeals courts is one reason the high court may decide to hear a case, experts say. Still, the court agrees to hear only about 2 percent of the approximately 7,000 cases submitted to it each year.
Legal scholars hope the high court will review the U-M cases to clarify a 1978 ruling in the Bakke case that said race could be used in admissions. Background on the specifics of the U-M case: The University of Michigan uses race as one factor in deciding whom to admit, with the goal of admitting a diverse student body, which it believes benefits all students.
This year, U-M received 24,511 applications for about 5,300 seats in its fall freshman class, according to U-M data. At the law school there were 5,256 applications this year for about 350 seats, according to law school data. But lawyers representing three white students who sued U-M say race is used as a determining factor and white students are denied admissions in favor of less-qualified minorities.
Here's how the policies work: ufgulletLaw school: Admissions counselors evaluate each applicant based on various criteria, including transcripts, resume, test scores, personal statements, race and recommendations.
The goal is to admit the best applicants and achieve a sufficient number of minority students so that they are not isolated or viewed as tokens. In March, 2001 U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that the policy relied too heavily on race and that diversity, although a laudable goal, was not a compelling state interest.
He ordered U-M to stop using race as a factor. The ruling was put on hold by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, pending its decision. ufgulletUndergraduate: Admissions counselors use a point system. Students are awarded points for academic factors and nonacademic factors such as race or being a scholarship athlete.
A student can also receive points for having a relative who is a U-M alumnus. In December, 2000, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan ruled that the current policy is legal. But he ruled that a previous policy, which set aside seats for minorities between 1995 and 1998, was illegal. He also ruled that diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies the use of race.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page