The University of Michigan's admission policy: The debate continues - News: noteworthy people, programs, funding, and technological advances in the world of higher education - Brief Article

Matrix: The Magazine for Leaders in Education, June, 2001 by Al Branch

Opponents of affirmative action and race-conscious forms of college admissions racked up another victory recently when a Detroit federal judge declared that such practices at the University of Michigan's law school were unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman's decision comes at a time when not only issues of affirmation action but also simple diversity on U.S. college campuses continue to simmer. In addition, Friedman's decision flies in the face of a December 2000 court ruling in another University of Michigan case that upheld affirmative action practices as it pertained to undergraduates.

"It's sad that affirmative action continues to be under attack and dismantled," Jesus Trevino, director of the Intergroup Relations Center at Arizona State University, told MATRIX magazine. Trevino has been following the case, but said his university has avoided similar legal proceedings because ASU does not base admissions partly on race.

"Diversity is crucial on today's college campuses, as is true in the rest of society, in part because it helps to uphold and ensure the principals of free speech," Trevino says.

In his ruling, Friedman said future admissions at the law school must be based on "race-neutral" criteria. "All racial distinctions are inherently suspect and presumptively invalid."

"The effects of general, societal discrimination cannot constitutionally be remedied by race-conscious decision-making," the judge wrote.

According to published reports, affirmative action has been particularly vulnerable since 1995 when the Regents of the University of California--caretakers of the nation's largest university system--ruled against the use of race in admissions. A federal appeals court followed suit and prohibited the practice in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana the next year, and since then, voters in California and Washington have rejected affirmative action in both higher education and state contracting.

Days after Friedman's decision, University of Michigan officials were back in court seeking a temporary reprieve from the ruling to allow the school's admission process, which was more than well underway, to continue until further appeals were heard. It would appear that the issue will reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the future, where supporters have said they plan to take the matter.

In addition, student groups have vowed to protest the decision.

The Association of American Colleges and Universities does not usually enter into policy discussions, but the group has come out in favor of affirmative action and the University of Michigan's decision to continue to fight for the practice, according to spokesperson Debra Humphreys. "Diverse environments help colleges reach certain learning goals," she says.

"The ideal of the integrated society, the importance of higher education to that ideal which is all consistent with the melting pot theory of American society--is really now drawn into question," Lee Bollinger, president of the University of Michigan, told The New York Times.

According to information released by the university and the Center for Individual Rights, the Washington organization that brought the Michigan lawsuits on behalf of rejected white applicants, in the fall of 2000 about 85 percent of the students that entered the Michigan law school were white and Asian, while 15 percent were black and Hispanic.

CIR CEO Terry Pell says he is "tremendously gratified by the decision, because it represents total victory ... and a complete repudiation of the law school's use of preferences."

Joining CIR in its opposition to affirmative action is the National Association of Scholars, which believes the university's argument in favor of the practice in order to help support diversity is bogus.

"A racially segregated, diverse class illustrates all too perfectly the problems we inherit, but need, at long last, to overcome," says AAC&U's president Carol Schneider, a proponent of race-conscious admissions.

Trevino says he believes it will now be open season on affirmative action in legal courts and the courts of public opinion. "As for supporters of affirmative action, we're outnumbered and disadvantaged." The New York Times contributed to this report.