affirmative action - UM - supreme court (wha-hoppin?!)

Jun 23 20:24 UTC 2003

supreme court, in two split decisions, upheld and trashed affirmative
action at UM. ... wel, which is it? upheld or trashed.
  

response 2 of 113:

Jun 23 20:51 UTC 2003

The Supreme Court ruled today on racial balancing though college
admissions policies.  The policy of U of M's undergraduate admissions
allowed for 20 additional points (out of 150 total) to be awarded based on
the applicant being of an under-represented race.  The U of M's law school
policy didn't award points but allowed prejudice in selecting for race
among qualified applicants. 

Or at least that's how I understand the issue.

The court ruled against the undergraduate policy but left the law school
policy stand. 

I interpret this to mean it's fine for a school to select for a racially
balanced student body among equally qualified applicants.  But it goes too
far to use race as a mechanism for joining the qualified pool of
applicants. 

If I got that right then I'm pleased with the ruling.  It's time. 

The vote was 6-to-3 on the undergraduate ruling and 5-to-4 on the
law school verdict.

response 4 of 113:

Jun 24 00:34 UTC 2003

For those who aren't on the UM's email system, excerpts from a campus-wide
email written by President Coleman:

----

A majority of the Court has strongly reaffirmed the principle of diversity
articulated by justice Powell in the Bakke decision.  The Court said that it
"endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling
state interest."  Universities can continue to use race as one of many factors
in an individualized admissions process.

[...]

These decisions are a wonderful victory for the University of Michigan, for all
of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals who supported us.

The Court has provided two important signals.  The first is a green light to
pursue racial and ethnic diversity in the college classroom.  The second is a
pathway to get us there.  The Law School policy clearly met the Court's
criteria for a holistic admissions process.  We will modify our undergraduate
admissions process to follow today's guidance from the Court. . . .  We expect
to have a revised undergraduate admissions process in place this Autumn.

[...]

I am proud of the role of the University of Michigan in this important debate.
We argued for fair and equal access.  Now, we will do whatever it takes to
recruit the finest, most diverse student body possible, within the provisions
of today's decisions.

[...]

[O]ur commitment to a diverse campus will continue. . . . [And,] every student
admitted to our University will continue to be eminently well qualified.

[...]

I expect that members of our community will engage in a full and robust debate
of many related issues.  I anticipate this discussion will be civil and
respectful of all points of view.  Your right to freedom of expression is
paramount at the University of Michigan.  This is a hallmark of our educational
system, and one of which I am most proud.

In the coming days and weeks, we will continue to provide updated information
on our main University WWW site [www.umich.edu].

This is an historic day for our University.  You may look to me for leadership
as we adapt to the new provisions of the law, and I will look to all of you for
inspiration.

With my best wishes,

Mary Sue Coleman
President

response 6 of 113:

Jun 24 12:08 UTC 2003

Severed arm??  What severed arm?

response 8 of 113:

Jun 24 13:12 UTC 2003

It is far nicer that the courts only specify what cannot be done, and 
leave open what remains, rather than specifying what can be done.  
Mainly, this is because the courts cannot possibly imagine all possible 
scenarios which their rulings may affect.