U-M is urging justices to not hear its
cases U-M is urging justices to not hear its
cases
Admissions ruling could affect others
October 30, 2002
BY MARYANNE GEORGE FREE PRESS ANN ARBOR BUREAU
The University of Michigan asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear two cases regarding its affirmative-action admissions policies. U-M argued Tuesday that lower courts correctly decided that diversity is a compelling state interest. This permits the use of race as a factor in admissions, and U-M's undergraduate and law school admissions policies are constitutional, according to U-M's court filings.
The legal battle over U-M's admissions policies, which began in 1997, centers on a 1978 Supreme Court decision in the Bakke case, which said race can be used in admissions. A Supreme Court decision reversing Bakke "would produce the immediate resegregation of many -- and perhaps most -- of this nation's finest and most selective institutions," U-M argued in court documents.
A ban on considering race in admissions "could cut the representation of African-American students at selective universities by more than two-thirds, and at accredited law schools by more than three-fourths." The Supreme Court justices are scheduled to discuss the U-M cases Nov. 27, according to U-M general counsel Marvin Krislov. If they decide to take the case, oral arguments would be scheduled early next year with a decision expected by the end of June.
In August, attorneys from the Center for Individual Rights who represent Barbara Grutter, 48, of Plymouth Township asked the high court to hear the law school case. In May, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that diversity is a compelling state interest and that the law school admissions policy is constitutional. Grutter sued U-M in 1997, claiming she was denied admission in favor of less-qualified minorities.
Earlier this month, CIR attorneys representing Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who also claim they were denied admission as undergraduates in favor of minorities, asked the high court to hear the case, bypassing the 6th Circuit Court, which has not yet ruled in that case. In December 2000, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan in Detroit also ruled that diversity is a compelling state interest and that the current undergraduate admissions policy is constitutional. Duggan said an earlier admissions policy, which set aside seats for minorities, was not legal, however.
U-M President Mary Sue Coleman said overturning the 1978 decision would "turn back the clock" on assembling a diverse student body. Conflicting rulings by appeals courts around the country and the importance of the issue make the U-M cases ideal for the Supreme Court to review, CIR spokesman Curt Levey said. But the high court could wait until the appeals court rules on the undergraduate case before making a decision on whether to hear the law school case, said Robert Sedler, a Wayne State University law professor and constitutional expert.
Or it could hear the law school case and decide it does not need to hear the undergraduate case, he said. On Tuesday, attorneys for a group of minority students who intervened as defendants in the law school case also asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. "If universities do not have the right to take into account bias in admissions criteria, it is a racist double standard that privileges white applicants and disadvantages minorities," said Miranda Massie, attorney for the students. "We must fight for a decisive nationwide victory."
Contact MARYANNE GEORGE 734-665-5600 or mageorge@freepress.com. MORE EDUCATION STORIES FREEP FRONT | NEWS FRONT
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page