Diane Gross
All institutions of higher education would not be diverse but for affirmative action programs. We've seen that in places where there's been a retreat on affirmative action and admissions have plummeted. And what it really does is it reaches out to give opportunities to students who wouldn't know of those opportunities or be able to take part in those opportunities but for the programs. And everybody in an institution, regardless even if they know it or not, benefits from having those different perspectives in their classrooms.
I remember, in law school, and this is an example of gender. But, in law school you know, you have a criminal law class with a discussion of rape and the impact that it has on women. If women were not in the room to have a conversation then it would be totally different. Having a conversation about Brown vs. Board of Education, or employment discrimination or anything of that nature, you can't have the same conversation, you can't learn the same depth out of that if you don't have different perspectives there.
I think if the Supreme Court decides that diversity is a compelling interest, it is a tremendous victory, starting with the precedent set in Bakke, which acknowledged that diversity plays a factor and should play a factor in admission. It says to schools out there that you can continue to do programs to increase diversity and it leaves a lot of discretion in the hands of universities to be able to continue to do that.
I think that depending on, obviously, what the Court says, by limiting the University of Michigan program and saying that that specific program is not appropriate, it leaves a lot of opportunity for schools to fashion other remedies and other programs that can really work to get to diversity by acknowledging that it is a compelling interest.
My name is Diane Gross. I am a woman. I graduated from New York University Law School and I am a civil rights Attorney.
