U-M case poses a fairness question U-M case poses a fairness question
Will affirmative action pass the high court test?
April 2, 2003
Thousands of activists marched, chanted, waved signs and sang spirituals Tuesday outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. Inside, justices wrestled with the shifting contours of affirmative action. In two hours of argument, filled with bobs and weaves and impassioned debate, all eyes were on the two justices -- Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy -- widely thought to be the swing votes in lawsuits challenging the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policies.
The justices aggressively questioned lawyers on both sides: Could U-M's law school remain elite while seeking diversity? Hasn't the high court permitted race as a factor in other cases? Moments after Kirk Kolbo, the attorney for three white students, began his presentation, O'Connor pressed. How could he prove that race kept the students out of U-M? Later, she admonished: "You have some precedents out there that you have to come to grips with, because the court obviously has upheld the use of race."
And Justice Clarence Thomas leaned forward late in the morning's session and told John Payton, the lawyer for U-M's undergraduate case, "the problem with the law school admissions at elite schools . . . is that you do not choose between being an elite school and diversity." Now, the justices talk among themselves, trying to find five who can agree and the plaintiffs, the protesters, U-M officials and tomorrow's college students wait -- likely for several months -- for a final ruling.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page