U-M
says its cause stronger than ever U-M
says its cause stronger than ever
Devotion to affirmative action to uphold Bollinger's vision
October 22, 2001 BY ERIK LORDS FREE PRESS EDUCATION WRITER
As the University of Michigan prepares this fall to defend two affirmative action lawsuits in federal appeals court, some have wondered whether the departure of U-M President Lee Bollinger will change the school's legal strategy or commitment to the cases. Not a chance, university leaders said last week. B. Joseph White, who was appointed U-M's interim president Friday, immediately pledged his commitment to the cases.
"We have a rock-solid commitment to affirmative action and diversity," White said. Added Regent Martin Taylor: "I really think our commitment to affirmative action is absolute and complete amongst all the regents and President White. There is no changing that course." Still, the cases will lose a driving force when Bollinger leaves to become Columbia University's president in December.
He championed the use of affirmative action in admissions and played a key role in shaping the legal strategy of arguing that a diverse student body improves education for all. In an interview last week, Bollinger said "nobody has talked to me about any kind of formal or informal or continuing relationship," in regards to U-M's legal strategizing.
He said the foundation for the legal argument and the public explanation is well established. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati was scheduled to hear both cases on Tuesday, but it postponed the cases until Dec. 6 so all nine judges could hear them instead of the traditional three-judge panel.
The two lawsuits filed in 1997 challenge U-M's affirmative-action policies in the undergraduate and law schools. They are being watched closely by public universities -- most of which have used policies similar to Michigan's to achieve diversity. Bollinger became president of U-M in 1997.
He rose to national prominence largely because of his ardent defense of U-M's admissions polices when white applicants who were denied admission filed the lawsuits claiming discrimination. Crisscrossing the nation, Bollinger galvanized affirmative-action support from higher education leaders and organizations and lined up support from dozens of Fortune 500 companies to file legal briefs on Michigan's behalf. Bollinger, a 1971 Columbia law school graduate, helped establish Michigan's defense on the premise that diversity strengthens universities and benefits all students by creating an enriched learning environment.
In the past, many universities had mixed results defending the policies because they said affirmative action was necessary to make amends for past discrimination. Michigan spent more than $4 million defending the cases, putting together what legal observers say is the most comprehensive pro-affirmative-action research ever assembled by a university. Sheldon Steinbach, general counsel for the American Council on Education in Washington, said Bollinger "took to the cases like a duck to water because of his legal background."
"Were he not a lawyer, he might have been interested, but not nearly as involved in the cases." The U-M strategy was half successful on the district court level. In December, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan ruled in favor of U-M's undergraduate admission policies, saying they were constitutional. In March, however, another district judge, Bernard Friedman, struck down the U-M Law School's affirmative-action policies.
The two schools used different methods for considering race. Most legal experts say they don't expect Bollinger's departure to affect the outcome. "I don't think his move to Columbia will hurt" the national affirmative action battle "at all," said Susan Low Bloch, a professor at the Georgetown University Law School.
"He seemed to be attractive to Columbia because of his views on affirmative action." But someexperts are not so sure of Bollinger's impact. "Nearly all of higher education has lined up lockstep in support of affirmative action, but I hadn't attributed that to the assiduousness of one man," said Duke University law professor William Van Alstyne. "It was the level of detail with which Michigan prepared its case that was notable."
Bollinger said he will still be a vocal advocate of affirmative-action policies and their effectiveness in creating a diverse educational environment. "I will continue, certainly, to speak out on the issue, because I care deeply about the issue," he said. Bollinger's move comes as courts elsewhere continue to issue conflicting rulings on affirmative-action lawsuits.
A Georgia federal appeals court unanimously ruled in August that the admissions policy of the University of Georgia is unconstitutional because it gives a preference in bonus points to nonwhite applicants. In addition to condemning Georgia's admissions policy, the court also questioned whether the Supreme Court's 1978 landmark ruling in Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke provides adequate justification for using race in admissions decisions.
For more than two decades, the Bakke case has guided most public college's affirmative-action policies. The recent decisions have led some colleges to re-evaluate their race-related policies. The University of Florida, for example, announced last month that it will no longer award scholarships based on race.
"The Georgia case is encouraging for us in that it uses an index system similar" to that used by Michigan, said Terrence Pell, an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights, based in Washington, D.C., which represents the plaintiffs in the U-M lawsuits.
Contact ERIK LORDS at 313-222-6513 or lords@freepress.com. Maryanne George contributed to this report.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page