2008 Woodie Awards
Taking real action on admissions
- Page 1 of 1
U.S. Dis-trict Judge Bernard Friedman granted an injunction Tuesday, ordering the University of Michigan law school to stop judging their applicants on race.
This is the second suit in the last six months brought on behalf of a rejected Michigan applicant by the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, D.C.
In a preceding case last December, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan affirmed Michigan's current means of including race in screening its undergraduate applicants in his summary judgment.
However, Duggan condemned the screening conditions that existed when the complaint was filed in 1997.
Before the lawsuit was filed, Michigan sorted applicants by a three-category system of grades, test scores and race. The school currently rates students by using a 150-point scale in the same three categories, with potential Hispanic, African-American and American Indian students receiving 20 points for their origin of descent (equal to a full point increase in their GPA's).
Maybe the most frustrating part of the situation is that both judges have valid points in their rulings.
Friedman ruled that the law school's policy is neither narrowly tailored nor a state interest, which technically, they aren't.
Duggan's ruling is supported by precedent, dating back to the Supreme Court's first ruling on racial considerations in admissions.
In U. of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that taking affirmative action-like policies into account was legal, but setting quotas for minority students or creating reverse discrimination was not.
While Michigan's initial system didn't directly set quotas, it certainly gave minorities an advantage in a statistical system.
On the reverse side of the equation is the University of California, Berkley. In 1996, California citizens voted to pass Proposition 209, banning affirmative action in all state institutions. Since then, the university's Asian-American population (which was already large) has skyrocketed, surpassing the white student population by fifteen percent and greatly decreasing Hispanic and African-American representation.
That prompted the University of California to spend over $150 million to increase the pool of qualified underrepresented minority students.
So what now?
As the situation stands, both cases seemed to be destined to end up in U.S. Circuit Court in Cincinnati, and may very well be on their way to the Supreme Court.
Kirk Kolbo, co-council for the plaintiff in the law school case, claimed Duggan's ruling was an "important step forward" in admissions standards.
I whole-heartedly agree with Kolbo comment that in a perfect, statistical based world, merit based admissions are the way to go.
Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to a campus atmosphere where they can feel comfortable. And there is no doubt that people are most comfortable when they feel that they fit in with a solid base of people around them.
When you throw all these debates and statistics away, there is only one answer. And that is total impartiality and acceptance on the part of every admissions officer in the country.
Sadly, that's one law that would be impossible to enforce.
Eric Brandner is a junior mass communication major and The Towerlight's assistant sports editor.
