NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 28, 2001

The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit brought by the Center for Individual Rights in Washington. The lawsuit was filed by a white woman who was denied admission to the law school despite posting higher test scores than black and Hispanic candidates who were admitted.

"We are tremendously gratified by the decision, which is a complete repudiation of University of Michigan's unconstitutional system of racial preferences," said Terry Pell, CEO for the advocacy group.

Law school dean Jeffrey S. Lehman said the ruling would be appealed.

The university had argued it had done nothing to violate the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978 Bakke ruling, which outlawed racial quotas. Rather, the university argued, it had a duty to consider more than just test scores in admitting students.

Minority students who intervened in the case claimed that test scores were poor indicators of academic success and should be de-emphasized. They also argued that the tests were racially biased.

In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman said racial considerations often "have been used for improper purposes" throughout U.S. history.

"Even when used for 'benign' purposes, they always have the potential for causing great divisiveness," Friedman wrote. "For these reasons, all racial distinctions are inherently suspect and presumptively invalid."

For race to be a legitimate consideration, there must be a "compelling state interest," not merely the desire to reach an "important, beneficial or laudable" goal.

"For the reasons stated in this opinion, the court concludes that the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as a factor in its admissions decisions is unconstitutional and a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act," Friedman concluded. "The law school's justification for using race – to assemble a racially diverse student population – is not a compelling state interest.

"Even if it were, the law school has not narrowly tailored its use of race to achieve that interest. Nor may the law school's use of race be justified on the alternative grounds urged by the intervenors – to 'level the playing field' between applicants of minority and non-minority races – because the remedying of societal discrimination, either past or present, has not been recognized as a compelling state interest."

The judge ordered UM Law School to stop using race as an admissions criterion immediately. Damages will be determined at a future trial.

"I'm disappointed," Lehman said. "In this case we presented overwhelming evidence that racial diversity is critical to a high-quality legal education.

"Judge Friedman accepted that evidence. He didn't quarrel with it. He concluded we established racial diversity in education is an important and laudable goal.

"He erred when he then went on to say that that goal does not justify the competitive consideration of race as one of many factors in our admissions process. That extra step was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bakke and recent decisions."

Lehman, who helped write the UM policy in 1992, said he was "completely confident we will be vindicated on appeal."

Lehman noted in an earlier statement posted on the law school's Web site when race was eliminated as a criterion at universities in California and Texas, minority enrollment plunged.

Discriminating Against ... a Woman

The case was brought on behalf of Barbara Grutter, 47, who was denied admission in 1996. Grutter, who runs a health care consulting firm from her suburban Detroit home, said she had been planning to specialize in health law and felt her years of work experience set her apart from other applicants.

"We have always taught our children that discrimination is wrong," she told the Detroit News in January. "We take that seriously in practice and discussion. We have taught them the law has protections for that. Do I want them to see myself be apathetic about that? No. I don't want them to think that discrimination is ideologically wrong but in practice it is OK."

Curt Levey, director of legal and public affairs for the Center for Individual Rights, called the decision a "total victory" for Gutter and a "repudiation of the law school's use of racial preferences. It went even further than we hoped for."

Levey said, given the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, it was unlikely Friedman's decision would be overturned.

The suit is one of four working its way through the legal system. A similar suit involving UM's undergraduate admissions policies earned a split decision, which found the system used until 1998 was unconstitutional but that used since did pass muster. In a suit involving the University of Texas, the court decision was similar to Friedman's, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco found in a case involving the University of Washington that "diversity" was a compelling interest.

See more articles about racial quotas.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

Related Products:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today.