Students didn't sway judge U-M undergraduate
ruling stands; case appealed Students didn't sway judge U-M undergraduate
ruling stands; case appealed
March 1, 2001
BY MARYANNE GEORGE FREE PRESS
ANN ARBOR BUREAU A group of minority students did not prove that discrimination at the University of Michigan justified the use of a race-conscious undergraduate admissions policy, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan has ruled. But the ruling, released Wednesday, does not change an earlier decision in which Duggan upheld U-M's admissions policy, which considers race as one factor.
In a 23-page opinion, Duggan said the students failed to cite any evidence that U-M's admissions policy was "motivated by a desire to remedy past or present discrimination by the university." "Furthermore the court is satisfied that the ...race-conscious admissions programs cannot be justified as measures to remedy either the current effects of past discrimination or the discriminatory impact of the other admissions criteria."
While upholding the current system, Duggan ruled in December that an admissions policy U-M used from 1995-98, which set aside seats for minorities, was illegal. Duggan also ruled in December that diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies the use of race in admissions. Lawyers for U-M had argued that the benefits of diversity, not discrimination, justified the policy.
The ruling is being appealed to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati by both U-M and the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington, D.C., law firm, that represents two white students. The students sued U-M in 1997, claiming they were denied admission in favor of less-qualified minority students.
This is the second time Duggan has ruled against the minority students. In 1998, he ruled that the students could not intervene in the undergraduate case. The appeals court reversed his ruling in 1999 and allowed the students to present evidence of discrimination as a full party to the case. The presence of the intervenors in the undergraduate case and in a similar case against the law school represent the first time minorities have been allowed to present evidence of discrimination in an admissions case, according to legal experts. Godfrey Dillard, a lawyer for the intervenors, said the group would appeal the latest ruling.
"The court did not feel people of color have anything to contribute to the affirmative action debate, but we are confident the 6th circuit will disagree with him," Dillard said. Liz Barry, U-M's deputy general counsel, said Duggan's ruling does not reverse U-M's victory in the undergraduate case.
"Both the intervenors and the university were fighting to preserve the current admissions policy," Barry said. "That battle has been won." But Curt Levey, a spokesman for CIR, said Duggan's ruling is good news for the plaintiffs in the undergraduate case and the law school case. A ruling in the law school case by U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, who presided over a historic trial last month, could come by the end of the month.
In that case, Friedman denied a request by a group of minority students to intervene in the case. But the appeals court reversed Friedman's ruling and the group presented evidence of discrimination at the trial. "The same evidence was presented in both cases," Levey said. "This bodes well for Barbara Grutter," the plaintiff in the law school case, "because we have a judge here who is not blindly against racial preferences who solidly repudiated the claims of the intervenors."
Contact MARYANNE GEORGE at 734-665-5600.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page