Supreme Court Hears Landmark Civil Rights Cases
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 4/2/2003
For the first time in nearly 25 years, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the critical issue of whether - and under what circumstances - public universities can consider race as a factor in the admissions process.
In two lawsuits filed against the University of Michigan, attorneys challenged the affirmative action policies of the University's undergraduate and law school programs, alleging that they discriminate against nonminority applicants on the basis of race.
The Bush Administration weighed in on the cases, taking the position that the Michigan programs are unconstitutional because there is no showing that diversity could not be achieved through a "race neutral" alternative.
Against the backdrop of a nation at war, several justices referenced issues of national security in their questioning. Justice Ginsburg, among others, cited the amicus curiae brief submitted by retired military leaders and their argument that they could not have a diverse officers' core without consideration of race.
A great deal of attention was focused on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, widely regarded as a swing vote. O'Connor was the first to question the attorney challenging the Michigan policies, asking him why race should be singled out when the university was facing a serious problem with thousands of applications for only a limited number of slots, and needed to make admissions decisions based on a number of factors.
Justice Scalia, on the other hand, expressed skepticism about the university's assertion that diversity was a compelling state interest. According to Scalia, the university had succeeded in creating a very selective law school, and it was predictable that it would exclude many minorities. If the university wanted diversity, it could simply lower its standards, Scalia suggested.
The university rejected the argument that it must choose between a quality law school and diversity. The issue, countered attorney Maureen Mahoney on behalf of the law school, is whether there is a sufficiently compelling interest in allowing for the best education of all students.
Michigan's attorneys were pressed at several points about the university's "critical mass" policy, which over the years had resulted in minority enrollments ranging from 12 percent to 17 percent of entering classes. Both attorneys stressed that the policy did not amount to a quota, arguing that the university considered race as only one of many factors and was a flexible program. Mahoney also cited U.S. Department of Education guidelines stating that numerical goals are permissible as long as they do not aside a specific number of slots.
The Court is expected to decide the cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, by July.
