On Jan. 16, 2003, the Bush Administration announced that it would submit a brief in the Grutter v. Bollinger case against affirmative action.
This case was granted a review by the U.S. Supreme Court last December and will be reviewed together with Michigan's undergraduate counterpart, Gratz v. Bollinger, on April 1st or 2nd this year.
Both cases stem from the 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the use of quota systems by institutions of higher learning in the admissions process was unconstitutional, but also held that a factor plus system was constitutional. However, the court has never reached a definitive conclusion as to whether diversity in the classroom was a sufficiently compelling interest to justify the use of race as one of many factors in order to obtain a diverse learning environment. Grutter and Gratz will determine whether the enrichment of the classroom by including race as one of many factors is an important social interest.
Three parties are involved in these cases: the plaintiffs, applicants who felt they were unfairly discriminated against by the current Michigan applications procedure; the defendants, the University of Michigan (Gratz) and the University of Michigan School of Law (Grutter); and the student interveners, 41 individual students from high school through law school and three student organizations.
The plaintiffs' position is that the use of race in the application procedure violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause because white applicants can never qualify for the factor plus points awarded to minority students. President Bush characterized the factor plus point system as a quota system. However, unlike a quota system that sets aside a guaranteed number of seats for a class of students, the factor-plus system uses an existing system of special preference which only aids classes of students but does not guarantee that any particular number of students will be admitted.
The question is not whether special treatment under the factor plus system is unfair because special treatment has always been used to aid in the college admissions process. Criteria used for factors plus points vary from school to school, but they include such soft variables as the school that a candidate graduated from; the difficulty of the courses taken, whether the candidate is a star athlete; whether the candidate's parents are alumnae; where the candidate lives, whether the candidate's parents have a college education. The question is whether race should be used as one of the soft variables taken into consideration for admissions.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The university's position is that a diverse student body enriches the learning environment by bringing a variety of perspectives to the classroom. Although race does not necessarily equate to a student having a different point of view, the reality is people of color and ethnic backgrounds often experience the world differently from whites and experience a deeper level of discrimination than whites due to the additional layers of identifiable characteristics that are often discriminated against in this society.
For example, a woman of color who is a lesbian would likely encounter more severe discrimination than a heterosexual woman of color, but a heterosexual woman of color would likely encounter more severe discrimination than a heterosexual white woman. These experiences, along with other life narratives such as, where one is raised, parents' background, culture, socio-economic and political beliefs, all create differing panoramic views of the world.
The further removed an individual is from "mainstream" white male experiences, the more divergent their interpretation of events is likely to be. When these varied visions are integrated into the classroom, a learning environment is created that allows an investigation of multiple scenarios. These investigations result in students discovering both commonalties and differences in individual and group perspectives on single and multiple issues. By encouraging students to take a more critical stance on issues, students are enabled to examine problems from different vantages thereby developing more sophisticated problem solving skills.
The student interveners' position is that affirmative action enables universities to achieve a measure of integration and diversity that offsets white privilege and racial inequality that otherwise permeates the University's admissions procedures. Without affirmative action, society faces the growing trend toward re-segregation that has been occurring nationally since the desegregation movement of the 1960s. Re-segregation is strongly correlated to unequal opportunities in education and employment for minorities that often results in high poverty rates.
The University of Michigan predicts that without a factor plus point system that includes race, minority enrollment will drop from 14.5 percent down to 4 percent. For society to move forward, it is necessary to recognize education as a right to be made available to all on equal terms and by extending that right under the Equal Protection Clause to include the right of students to attend integrated colleges and universities.
It is through integration that we move toward a more equitable society. Not to do so would force society to maintain a caste- system defined by past political and cultural history.
The UNM School of Law is sponsoring a panel discussion on affirmative action in the context of the Grutter v. Bollinger case on Feb. 11th, 2003 at 6 p.m. in the forum at the Law School. Shanta Driver, national director of United For Equality and Affirmative Action, will be speaking on behalf of the student interveners. Charlotte Johnson, associate dean at the University of Michigan School of Law will be speaking on behalf of the university.
There will also be an amicus brief presentation by current law students addressing why affirmative action is important to New Mexicans. Additionally, there will be an organized March on Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court on April 1 or 2, the day of the hearing, to let the Supreme Court how Americans feel about affirmative action.
This case will profoundly affect the future of education in the United States and New Mexico so please join us so that together we can send a clear message in a unison voice to both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bush Administration that Americans support maintaining affirmative action as being the correct decision for future of this country.
