University of Michigan affirmative action policy hits the Supreme Court
Race still matters, according to two Supreme Court cases challenging the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies.
One of the University of Michigan cases making headlines lately involves a law school applicant. The student accuses the institution of rejecting white applicants because of their race and using unfair standards to admit less-qualified minorities.
The companion case deals with undergraduate admissions. A student who was denied acceptance in 1995 claims Michigan basically runs two admissions systems to obtain a predetermined racial mix. The school uses a point system to grade an applicant’s record. Blacks, Hispanics or Native Americans received 20 points automatically, which equals raising their academic grade average by one point.
“The goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race … under some circumstances,” wrote Justice Lewis Powell in the 1978 Allen Bakke case, the last time affirmative action was addressed in public universities.
Affirmative action programs, which were originally implemented to correct racial and cultural discrimination, have proven controversial and difficult to enforce. California has eliminated affirmative action policies, but such programs continue in the rest of the country.
According to Section 1.1 of USU’s Affirmative Action Policy, “Equal opportunity in employment and education is an essential priority for Utah State University. In accordance with established laws, the university prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or veteran’s status.”
Brandt Berntson, a sophomore majoring in Spanish, said he hasn’t felt any positive or negative discrimination at USU yet. But he agrees that the possibility exists.
“The most qualified person should get accepted,” Berntson said.
Public relations junior Scott Jardine said he hadn’t been involved with any of the programs or personal effects, either.
“[Affirmative action programs] can definitely be a good thing,” Jardine said. “But it doesn’t always present the most qualified person with the job.”
In April, the Justices will be asked to decide if a state has a compelling interest to promote diversity among the student body or whether the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits giving one ethnic group special advantages over another.
The final ruling is expected by June.
–hilj@cc.usu.edu