Affirmative Action Upheld
Landmark Ruling Safeguards Affirmative Action
In a landmark June 2003 case involving
the University of Michigan 's admissions policies-one of the most important
rulings on the issue in twenty-five years-the United States Supreme Court
ruled that race can be used as a factor in university admission decisions.
The cases tested whether the university is allowed to use race as a factor
because it values diversity in its student body, or only to reverse past
racial injustice.
The Supreme Court justices decided two separate but parallel cases-they voted 5-4 to uphold the University of Michigan 's law school admission policy, which utilized race as a "plus factor." But in a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down the affirmative action policy for undergraduate admissions, which awarded 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans on an admissions rating scale. In the Michigan cases, the Supreme Court ruled that although affirmative action was no longer justified as a way of redressing past oppression and injustice, it promoted a "compelling state interest" in diversity at all levels of society. A record number of "friend-of-court" briefs were filed (including one from the University of Notre Dame) in support of Michigan 's policies by hundreds of organizations representing academia, business, labor unions, and the military, arguing the benefits of broad racial representation.
The pivotal case, Grutter v. Bollinger
, involved the university's law school. Barbara Grutter, who is white,
applied for admission there in 1996 and was rejected. She investigated
and found out that African Americans and ethnic minorities who had lower
overall admissions scores were admitted. So Grutter sued, saying she was
a victim of illegal discrimination. Grutter's lawyers argued that the
admissions program at the university's law school was unconstitutional,
based on a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
, where the court ruled that a school could take race and ethnicity
into account-but couldn't use quotas. Instead, admissions programs must
be "narrowly tailored" to harm as few people as possible.
Grutter and her supporters won the first round in U.S. District Court,
but lost in a close decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
covers the states of Kentucky , Michigan , Ohio and Tennessee . The majority
of appellate court justices sided with the university view that a diverse
student body has its own benefits, and that a "points" system
for admission that takes the race of the applicant into account in an
overall score wasn't a quota. Grutter appealed that ruling to the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court (5-4) upheld the University of Michigan Law School's
policy, ruling that race can be one of many factors considered by colleges
when selecting their students because it furthers "a compelling interest
in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student
body." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the eventual deciding vote
in Grutter , saying that affirmative action is still needed in
America -but hoped that its days are numbered. "In order to cultivate
a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary
that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified
individuals of every race and ethnicity. [But] we expect that 25 years
from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to
further the interest approved today."
But the narrowly divided court also placed limits on how much of a factor
race can play in the admissions process. In the undergraduate case, Gratz
v. Bollinger , the 6-3 majority ruled that the more formulaic approach
of the University of Michigan 's undergraduate admissions program, which
uses a point system to evaluate students and awards additional points
to minorities, violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of race was not "narrowly
tailored" to achieve the university's diversity goals. The undergraduate
program, unlike the law school program, did not provide the "individualized
consideration" of applicants deemed necessary in previous Supreme
Court decisions on affirmative action.
For further information, the University of Michigan Documents Center has an extensive website with resources pertinent to these cases at http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html