Students can't address Supreme Court in U-M case Students can't address Supreme Court in U-M case
Intervenors say they expected chance to speak
March 11, 2003
BY MARYANNE GEORGE FREE PRESS
ANN ARBOR BUREAU
Minority students who intervened in two lawsuits challenging the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policies will not be allowed to present oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 1, the court ruled Monday. Lawyers for the students said they were disappointed with the decision and angry with U-M lawyers who they said misled them into thinking they'd be allowed to use some of the university's time to present an oral case.
"They led us to believe they were going to give us time, and at the last minute they pulled the rug out from under us," said Godfrey Dillard, a lawyer for the student intervenors in the undergraduate admissions case. He said now they'll be forced to watch the proceedings instead of participating: "They are supposed to be representing us, and now the black man is up in the damn gallery again."
U-M lawyers denied they had agreed to give up any time from their arguments. U-M gets 30 minutes before the court to present its defense in each of the separate cases challenging the undergraduate and law school admissions processes. U-M was sued by three white students in 1997 who said they were denied admission in favor of less qualified minority students. "We have been straightforward throughout the process and have a collegial and constructive relationship with them," said U-M General Counsel Marvin Krislov.
"The intervenors are an important part of the case, and I'm sure the court will review their briefs." Through their lawyers, the minority students had argued that U-M's history of discrimination warrants the use of admissions policies that give underrepresented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- an assist. In its undergraduate policy, U-M awards underrepresented minorities 20 points on a 150-point scale, equal to the difference between a 4.0 and 3.0 high school grade point average.
U-M lawyers did not object to giving the intervenors 10 minutes to make their case but would not surrender it from their own time. The Supreme Court, as expected, granted permission to U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson -- the government's top attorney -- to argue on behalf of the three white students.
Olson will tell the court that race-neutral means can be used to achieve diversity. Because U-M has to defend itself against Olson's arguments and the arguments brought by the plaintiffs, U-M lawyers need the full 30 minutes, U-M has argued in court documents. Miranda Massie, a lawyer for the student intervenors in the law school case, said Monday's ruling shows the Supreme Court does not want to hear evidence of discrimination.
"How can you reach an intelligent conclusion on whether affirmative action is fair and legal without taking account of the unearned advantage for white people in the admission system?" Massie said. The court is expected to rule by the end of June in a decision likely to affect admissions nationwide.
Contact MARYANNE GEORGE at 734-665-5600.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page