Truth and consequences: in the Michigan aftermath, the real fight begins as local institutions work to apply the Supreme Court ruling to meet their campuses' individual needs and/or restrictions - Special reports: focus on diversity

Black Issues in Higher Education, Sept 25, 2003 by Kendra Hamilton

A MOOT POINT

There are many institutions for which such questions are moot. The high court's decisions will have little or no impact, for example, in Georgia and California--to name two states.

"Our context is that we lost a suit in August of 2001 that forbid us to take race into account in any way. That was very costly for us--to be involved in a series of suits and a consent decree," says Dr. Del Dunn, vice president for instruction at the University of Georgia. "So we're very aware, with the various (anti-affirmative action) groups reacting to the Michigan decisions, that we're going to continue to be under a microscope."

Georgia's numbers are still down, but they appear to be rebounding from the loss of affirmative action as a tool in the application process. African American students were about 6 percent of the student body in 2000; last year, they crept back to 4.8 percent, and this year riley may be above 5 percent. Even more importantly, the retention rate among African Americans from freshman to sophomore year is 97 percent, Dunn comments, noting that the retention rate among all students is 93 percent.

That's good news, to be sure, for it looks as if Georgia will be operating in a race-neutral environment for the foreseeable future.

As will the California university systems. Proposition "209 puts a particular lens or sieve on any program that we have. The Michigan decision doesn't remove that," says Richard Black, assistant chancellor for admissions and enrollment at the University of California-Berkeley.

Following 209, California greatly expanded its outreach programs.

"However, along with that expansion came the requirement that the programs had to be race neutral," Black notes. "So there was good news for us in that we were serving more students, but the growth in underrepresented students was more modest, and the Michigan decision does not change that."

Nor does Black see much hope that the court's limited endorsement of diversity will encourage a renaissance in race-conscious outreach--at least not in California.

"The current budget climate in California is bleak, and outreach programs have been curtailed. For example, we have had programs in middle schools since 1998, and we're having to curtail those programs because of the budget reductions.

"Now we have some other programs that are privately funded; we have federal programs. And they are not affected by the current state cutbacks, but budget cutbacks are causing us to reduce programs rather than the more liberal atmosphere in the wake of the Michigan decision facilitating an expansion."

So, while, as Dunn notes, "the case does provide more clarity. It definitively establishes a legal basis for 'limited consideration of race,' and we no longer have to prove the advantage to diversity within the classroom." It also appears that the race-neutral concept is here to stay, especially in view of the fact that the high court has issued what Dixon called a "sunset" on ",affirmative action.

Given what she calls the "confused" nature of the court's ruling, Chavez says, "I think there will continue to be challenges, and I'm hoping (affirmative action) won't last another 25 years."