Texas court ruling may affect U.

A recent decision by a Texas district court judge will likely not have a significant impact on the University's law school admissions policies. Judge Sam Sparks ruled in favor of four white students who sued the University of Texas and its law school on the grounds of reverse discrimination. The students claimed that the law school violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by separating the applications of racial and ethnic minorities from those of majority students. University Law School Dean Colin Diver said that although ambiguity surrounds the Texas decision, he predicts the law school will continue doing business as usual. "My guess is that this one committee is now going to take race into account in more or less the same way they did before," he remarked. Texas abandoned its policy before the decision was handed down, but the judge did rule to allow the students to re-apply for admission. Sparks ruled that, while some form of affirmative action is acceptable, the separation of applications is not. Janice Austin, director of admissions for the University's law school, said she was generally pleased with the decision, which she saw as supporting affirmative action. Both Diver and Austin expressed satisfaction with the University's current admissions policy, which involves affirmative action but not the separation of applications. "I think it's a fair one and a good one," Diver said. "I hope it's a constitutional one." Austin said her "sense is that Penn is very much committed to having a diverse academic environment." "Every law school that I'm familiar with has some kind of affirmative action program in admissions," Diver said, adding that the accrediting arm of the American Bar Association requires universities to have one. Grade point average and scores on the Law School Admissions Test are not the only factors considered in the decision process, Diver said. "What we're saying is that there are other factors that are in many cases not measurable, certainly not easily quantifiable, that help predict success," he added. Austin agreed with Diver's analysis. "You want to know that you're doing the right thing, at the same time creating an atmosphere of equity in terms of the process for all students who apply," she said. Julian Chan, a third-year Law student, said affirmative action "is a consideration -- one among many -- but not grounds for separating into different pools." But, Julie Chung, a third-year Law student and president of the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, said a policy of separating applications is practical. "You're going to be doing that ultimately, so from the beginning they might just, for administrative ease, separate people out," Chung said. Diver said an appellate court's decision, should the Texas case be appealed, would be helpful in clarifying the legal status of affirmative action. Ultimately, though, he said, "I really hope that we get some clarification from the Supreme Court."