06/26/01: Affirmative Action, Mich.

[Freakapotimus]

Tuesday June 26 5:01 AM ET

Focus on Affirmative Action in Mich.
By ALEXANDRA R. MOSES, Associated Press Writer

DETROIT (AP) - Though the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a ruling that led Texas to abandon a raced-based admissions policy at its colleges and universities, it may not be the court's last word on the subject.

Two separate appeals winding their way through the courts involve University of Michigan policies that consider race when evaluating applicants to its undergraduate and law schools.

Some experts believe Michigan's debate is headed to the high court.

On Monday, the nation's highest court declined to hear Texas' appeal to a 1996 ruling that its law school affirmative action program discriminated against whites.

The Michigan cases offer ``very well-written opinions going in different directions, which always helps,'' said Doug Kmiec, dean of the Catholic University of America law school.

In March, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman struck down the Michigan law school's affirmative action policy saying the admissions criteria were not clearly defined and relied too heavily on race. The university is continuing to use the policy pending appeals.

Friedman's ruling contradicted that of U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan, who in December affirmed Michigan's undergraduate admissions standards, in place since 1999. Duggan ruled that diversity on a public college campus is a compelling state interest and a valid admissions criterion.

Both cases are being appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Oral arguments are scheduled for October.

Kmiec said the Supreme Court needs a new case to move the issue of race-based admissions policies forward from its 1978 Bakke case, which allowed consideration of race in university admissions but outlawed racial quotas.

``The court has already staked out its general principal and that is race shouldn't be used for public decision-making without a compelling governmental interest,'' Kmiec said.

``The case that the court wants for the next round is not a case that just allows those high-level thoughts ... but rather a case that allows those high-level thoughts ... and applies (them) to a concrete real-world situation.''

But others argue it is hard to read too much into Monday's action because the Supreme Court agrees to hear few cases.

``Nobody should read anything into it except the fact that the Supreme Court was not prepared to address the issue at this time.'' said Robert Sedler, professor of constitutional law at Detroit's Wayne State University.

``There's just no margin in reading the tea leaves of the Supreme Court,'' added Liz Barry, University of Michigan deputy general counsel. ``This doesn't say anything about how the Supreme Court will affect our case.''

Michigan's law school relies on grades and exam scores but considers applicants who have low scores but ``may help achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education.''

Applicants are graded on a 150-point scale. Blacks, Hispanics and American Indians get 20 points for their race - equal to raising their grade-point average a full point on a 4-point scale.

Whatever case it chooses, the Supreme Court needs to address affirmative action in admissions policies, said Curt Levey, spokesman for the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative legal group which brought the lawsuits in the Michigan and Texas cases.

``It's an issue of national importance. The U.S courts of appeal are so divided, and there's a lot of confusion concerning the Bakke decision,'' Levey said. ``They sort of owe it to the public.''

On the Net:

University of Michigan, http://www.umich.edu

5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 5th Circuit.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Personally, even though I'm very liberal leaning... I don't think that it is fair to admit someone just becuase of the color of their skin. I'm not an egalitarian, but I beleive that admiting someone into a school or not becuase of their race is wrong. Seperate Funds however, such as goverment sponserd programs to pay minorities way through college, seems reasonable becuase that's more of reparations than a physical bias. Admitance based on skin color in stead of intelligence or ability is wrong, however monetary reparations for the past is ok. This also applys the equal opportunity lenders... etc.. which are acually unfair, in my opinion.

[Freakapotimus]

At 6/27/01 12:57 AM, Anarchypenguin wrote: Personally, even though I'm very liberal leaning... I don't think that it is fair to admit someone just becuase of the color of their skin.

I agree with you. I've never agreed with Affirmative Action, or quotas, regulations, requirements, etc. I don't feel it's right for "minorities" to be offered or denied jobs/education because they are "minorities." And it if people would just shut up about it all, no one would truely care anymore! Sure, you get a few racists and bigots in the mix, but for the most part, many people really don't care about skin color or race anymore.

I have to laugh when I see a sign that says "An Equal Oppurtunity, Affirmative Action employer." Ha!