Mich. Admissions
Policy Rejected Ruling Muddles Legal Status of Affirmative Action at Colleges
Mich. Admissions
Policy Rejected Ruling Muddles Legal Status of Affirmative Action at Colleges
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 28, 2001; Page A02
A federal judge yesterday rejected the use of race as a factor in higher education admissions, ruling that the University of Michigan Law School's practice of accepting minority students with lower grades and test scores than whites is not justified by the school's quest for racial diversity. In a ruling that further muddles the legal status of affirmative action in college admissions, U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman disagreed with the university's contention that racial diversity is a "compelling" state interest and declared the school's admissions policy unconstitutional.
The ruling is directly at odds with a decision in December by another federal judge in Detroit in a case challenging the University of Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action program. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan said Michigan's practice of giving an edge to African American, Hispanic and Native American applicants -- as it does to the children of alumni, scholarship athletes and others -- is constitutional.
The conflicting legal opinions fueled the growing sentiment among higher education officials and others that the U.S. Supreme Court must take a case soon to bring clarity to this area of the law. The court last issued a ruling on affirmative action in college admissions in 1978. That decision was widely interpreted as permitting the use of race as one of many factors in deciding college admissions -- but outlawing racial quotas.
"I think this ruling draws the issue rather starkly for higher education and for society," said University of Michigan President Lee C. Bollinger, who promised to appeal yesterday's ruling. "Higher education has relied on that seminal [Supreme Court] case for 23 years. To hold now that it is not good law is an enormous reach for a district court judge.
I would hope that this issue will be properly resolved by a higher court." The rulings in the twin University of Michigan cases come on the heels of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found the University of Washington Law School's consideration of race in admissions decisions to be legal.
But in 1996, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans barred colleges from using race as an admissions factor in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Another lawsuit challenging the University of Georgia's affirmative action program is pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"In the end, the Supreme Court is going to have to sort this out," said Curt Levey, director of legal and public affairs for the Center for Individual Rights, the public interest law firm that brought the cases against the University of Michigan. The case against the University of Michigan Law School was filed in 1997 by Barbara Grutter, 47, who alleged that she was unfairly rejected by the law school.
"I have always taught my children that discrimination is wrong -- both morally and legally," said Grutter, who is white. "Now I can tell them that's not just talk." In his ruling, Friedman ordered the law school to end its practice of routinely admitting African American, Hispanic and Native American applicants with lower grades than white and Asian applicants. He said the practice is employed to enroll a "critical mass" of underrepresented minorities.
"By using race to ensure the enrollment of a certain minimum percentage of underrepresented minority students, the law school has made the current admissions policy practically indistinguishable from a quota system," Friedman wrote. In making his decision, Friedman found that although underrepresented minority applicants generally have lower grade-point averages and Law School Admission Test scores than white and Asian applicants, they are admitted to the prestigious Michigan law school in about the same proportions.
Last year, 35 percent of black and Latino applicants and 40 percent of white and Asian applicants were admitted. If admissions were race-blind, experts testified, just 10 percent of underrepresented minorities and 44 percent of white and Asian applicants would have been admitted. The result would have been an entering law school class that was 4 percent minority, rather than 14.5 percent. Although Friedman called this evidence of illegal "emphasis" on race, Bollinger said it shows the need to use race as an admissions factor.
Minorities graduate from the law school in close to the same percentages as whites, he said, and the diversity they bring enhances the educational experience. "I think this is one of the most important issues of our times," Bollinger said. "The notion of an integrated society in a country built around a melting pot theory is the crucial principle that has guided us and is now at stake."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page