No one was 'silenced' in case involving U-M's admissions plan
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
By Pete Waldmeir / The Detroit News
In case you are confused by recent headlines, the U.S. Supreme Court will not "bar" any minority viewpoints or "silence" any student objectors when it hears oral arguments April 1 in the U-M case. The case involves three white applicants who were denied the right to enroll at the University of Michigan in 1997 while candidates they say were less qualified were admitted. Each side in the pending litigation has been given 30 minutes for an oral presentation to support its legal briefs.
The U-M lawyers say they need the entire half-hour to try to convince the justices that the status quo is the way to go. The plaintiffs' attorneys have generously relinquished 10 minutes of their allotted half hour to U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, who will speak on behalf of President Bush in support of their position that a race-neutral policy is preferable to U-M's present point system for admissions. Neither the high court, the government nor the three student plaintiffs have silenced or barred any minority individual or group. What's happened is that the university's legal defense team wisely has refused to yield any of its allotted 30 minutes to outside intervenors.
While the overall minority viewpoint may be interesting in another context, it has absolutely no bearing on the issue before this court -- which is whether the white students' constitutional rights were violated. Consequently, the U-M lawyers aren't eager to waste time talking about apples when the issue on the table is oranges. As is often the case when the facts don't support their argument, however, the folks who believe others must listen every time they speak conveniently ignore the rules and claim they've been fouled. If that's correct, however, the only people who've fouled them are their own supporters.
This high-profile case has been weaving its way through lower courts for years. The U.S. Supreme Court has been gearing up for it for months. Everybody's had ample time to learn the drill. They all know what's up. Basically, what it boils down to is, if you want to be seen, fine. But there's no guarantee that you'll be heard. That goes for both sides. File your briefs and file your responses and submit them by the preset deadlines. Get all the help you need; have your friends file all the supporting documents they care to file. But stick to the basic argument, which is:
Did the university violate three student applicants' rights under the equal protection clause of the U. S. Constitution by invoking race-conscious admissions standards that were unfairly weighted? That's it. Period. Everything else just clutters up the process. And while we're talking about misconceptions, let's bury another smelly red herring concerning "legacy." The gripers would have you believe that U-M applicants who have a family member among the U-M alumni hold an unfair advantage over minority candidates who don't.
According to the U-M's 150-point admissions rating chart, however, if you are an under-represented minority, you get 20 points. In contrast, if a parent is a graduate, you get four points. Somebody needs new batteries in their calculator.
Pete Waldmeir's column appears Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday in The Detroit News. Call him at (313) 222-2345 or send e-mail to PWaldmeir@aol.com.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page