As Michigan arguments start, campus weighs in

When the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments this morning in the two cases against the University of Michigan's race-conscious admission policies, some 40 University students will take to the streets of Washington, D.C. as part of a national march to support affirmative action.

The trip to Washington, organized by the Black Student Union, places participating students at the center of a controversial debate about the future of affirmative action and also highlights the key role that the cases will play in shaping future admission policies both at public and private universities.

The cases before the court today were brought against the University of Michigan by white applicants who allege that the undergraduate and law school admission policies deny them their equal protection constitutional rights.

"This is a very important time for everyone — blacks, Hispanics, women, legacies — all the different groups that represent aspects of affirmative action," said Brittani Kirkpatrick '05, president of the BSU. "The BSU is all about dialogue, talking to groups and attempting to dispel the negative connotations around the term affirmative action that has been perpetuated by the media and other groups."

Kirkpatrick commended the University for signing a brief with Harvard University and six other universities that side with the University of Michigan, She said this is an important step in support of affirmative action.

"Diversity plays a critical role in higher education both within the student body and the faculty, and we of the BSU commend President Tilghman and the University for taking such a strong stand on this important issue," she said.

Day of silence

The BSU also organized a day of silence yesterday, with students wearing black to demonstrate their support of affirmative action.

The USG may hold a student referendum this week on a student statement in support of affirmative action. Six other Ivy League student governments have already adopted similar statements.

Tomorrow, the USG will vote on a resolution concerning the Michigan cases to submit to the student body for a referendum, and student voting will take place between tomorrow and Saturday, said Kyle Detwiler '05, USG Treasurer. The USG hopes the referendum will let students formulate their own positions on the issue rather than advocate on their behalf.

A majority vote of one-sixth of undergraduates would be required for approval.

The two cases against the University of Michigan — Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger — refer specifically to Michigan's admission policies at its law school and its largest undergraduate college, the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. The plaintiffs claim the admission policies unlawfully discriminate against them because they take race and ethnicity into account as "a plus factor" in the admissions process.

The current Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action is the 1978 case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The current cases have been brought against Michigan under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and question whether treating members of the "majority race" differently because of race is a violation of this clause, said Christopher Eisgruber '83, a professor in the Wilson School.

Several different outcomes are plausible, including the possibility that the court will take a middle-of-the-road approach rather than ruling explicitly for or against race-conscious admissions programs.

"If the court upholds the Bakke decision and only strikes down the Michigan program, then Princeton will have to be careful but should be fine because our admissions policy is based on a subjective assessment process instead of a points system like Michigan's," Eisgruber said.

Other means needed

However, he added, if the court decides admission policies should be race blind, the University would have to seek other means for maintaining comparable levels of racial diversity on campus because, though it is not a public institution, it is obligated to comply with the ruling because the University receives public funds.

The University will also more likely be affected by the ruling on the law school policies because the law school system is similar to that of Princeton, with the school aspiring to recruit a "critical mass" of minority students each year, Eisgruber said.

The court will evaluate the critical mass idea to determine how closely it resembles a quota, which was prohibited by the 1978 Bakke decision.

While many analysts like Eisgruber see diversity as a crucial factor in higher education, the idea of diversity as a compelling state need remains to be validated in court, said Robert George, professor of politics.

"The cases against the University of Michigan ultimately ask whether diversity is a legitimate goal under the Constitution and whether the specific Michigan program is narrowly tailored as specified by the Bakke ruling," George said. "To withstand this challenge Michigan has to prove that the use of race in admissions advances state interest."

Though views on the legality of affirmative action remain divided, many students continue to assert the importance of a diverse community in enhancing higher education.

"Affirmative action is not about points, preferences or lowering standards, but about creating a community," Kirkpatrick said. "It's about giving students a chance that they might not have had otherwise.