High court backs admission policy - HR News - University of Michigan Law School

HR Magazine, August, 2003

The Supreme Court's ruling June 23 that the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policy for its law school was constitutional was favorably received by the business community and employment attorneys as it is expected to have ripple effects on corporate affirmative action programs.

The university's admissions policy was being challenged in the case of Grutter v. Bollinger. In May 2002, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the university's law school admissions policy does not run afoul of the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection" under the law because it is narrowly tailored to achieve the state's compelling interest in having a diverse student body,

The high court in a narrow 5-4 decision agreed, with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noting in the court's opinion that the policy promotes cross-racial understanding, helps break down stereo-types and enables students to better understand persons of different races. Still, in a companion case, Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruled 6-3 that the university's undergraduate admissions policy was unconstitutional because it is not narrowly drawn to create diversity in classrooms.

While both cases dealt with a university admission process, the decisions will have some impact on the use of affirmative action in employment settings, according to Maria Greco Danaher, attorney with the law firm of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote in Pittsburgh. The basic premise of each decision, Danaher said, is that an effective selection process should include individualized consideration of qualifications, including the contribution that an individual's race or ethnic background might make to overall diversity. Such individualized consideration would not replace a review of basic qualifications or guarantee admission or hire.

The court's equal protection analysis does not strictly apply to private-sector employment decisions covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it is instructive for corporate workforce diversity programs.