Diversity
Its value faces critical tests in U-M's court cases Diversity
Its value faces critical tests in U-M's court cases
September 10, 2001
A recent federal appeals court decision striking down the use of affirmative action in admissions at the University of Georgia underscores the importance of the two upcoming affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan. The U-M cases are scheduled to be heard Oct. 23 in Cincinnati before a panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
As affirmative action policies are alternately struck down and upheld at the federal appellate level, they also are considered the cases on which the U.S. Supreme Court will most likely resolve the issue. In the Georgia case, a panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said the university's admission policy was too arbitrary and sloppy.
The school offered no meaningful analysis of affirmative action, nor empirical data or objective research to show how the value of diversity justified the use of race-conscious remedies, the court said. The judges indicated, though, that while Georgia didn't make a very good one, courts should be open to an argument about the benefit of achieving diversity in public education.
"The important purpose of public education and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university environment ...may on a powerful record justify treating student body diversity as a compelling interest," the court said. That is precisely why the U-M case is so critical. Unlike the University of Georgia case and the University of Texas Hopwood case in 1996 -- in which arguments also suffered from a lack of empirical research -- the U-M policy is backed by solid evidence regarding the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
When U.S. Eastern District Judge Patrick Duggan upheld U-M's revamped affirmative action policy for undergraduates last December, he noted that the university was able to quantify its positive effects on the learning environment and used race as only one factor in admissions. Of course, three months later, Duggan's colleague Judge Bernard Friedman took a polar opposite view on law school admissions.
The Court of Appeals, and likely the Supreme Court, will have to determine just how much weight to give the U-M research in weighing the constitutionality of affirmative action. If U-M's powerful case does not meet the test, it's probable that affirmative action won't either.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page