Experts: Court case will alter admit policy

(See below for correction.) Some colleges and universities may be forced to re-evaluate their admissions policies if the Supreme Court comes down against the University of Michigan's stance on affirmative action in a hearing slated for this spring. Up to this point, universities have been allowed to use race as a factor in admissions decisions because of a clause that legalizes this practice if it is geared toward the educational benefits of a diverse classroom. But all that could change this spring, producing a wide range of effects, according to experts. "We're awaiting the Supreme Court's decision with great interest," Penn Admissions Dean Lee Stetson said. "It could have a bearing on us in a very distinctive way." Due to legal differences between a state university and a private one, in addition to differences in the admissions policies of Penn and Michigan, it is unclear exactly what the effect of the decision will be on Penn. "Right now we're in a wait-and-see mode," Stetson added. "We feel that we can work with any reasonable decision that comes from the high court... [but] it could create a challenge for us, in that we will have to work to achieve the same ends, but perhaps with a different approach." "This will be a major decision," Law Professor Anita Allen-Castellitto said. "It will be one of the most important race-related decisions that the Supreme Court has ever handed down." In April, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases regarding the University of Michigan's admissions policies -- Grutter v. Bollinger, which concerns the university's law school, and Gratz v. Bollinger, which deals with its undergraduate admissions policy. The latter case deals specifically with the University of Michigan's use of a 150-point system to offer admission to prospective students. Under this system, each of a student's characteristics are given a number of points, with students with the most points being offered admission. Students receive 20 points if they are black or a member of another minority group, while those same 20 points also represent a full letter grade change in grade point average. In the midst of widespread controversy over the issue, President Bush in January filed a brief, urging the Supreme Court to rule against Michigan's policies. But many say the stakes are much higher than just admissions. Experts at Penn agree that a ruling against Michigan could set a precedent for future decisions against race-based policies. "If they rule that all use of affirmative action is unconstitutional, that would have a big impact," Law Professor C. Edwin Baker said. Allen-Castellitto pointed to the case involving Michigan Law School as particularly important. "Changing affirmative action changes the legal profession," she said. "I think the outcome could dramatically affect the number of minority lawyers in the country, and minority lawyers have been in the forefront in protecting the rights of the poor, civil rights and human rights." Both Allen-Castellitto and Law Professor Alan Lerner said they predict -- and fear -- that the Supreme Court will find Michigan's policies unconstitutional. "I fear that they took the case in order to continue a pattern... of curtailing and cutting back on various kinds of affirmative action programs," Allen-Castellitto said. "I think there are very few law professors in the United States that believe that the Michigan program is unlawful and unconstitutional," she added. Lerner said he is so "pessimistic" about the potential outcome of this case that he signed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" brief, in support of Michigan's admissions policy. These briefs are submitted by third parties not directly affiliated with the case, but have a vested interest in the outcome. Even if the Supreme Court rules that Michigan's policies are unconstitutional, the direct effect on Penn admissions remains to be seen. Penn is a private institution and does not receive funding from the government. As such, depending on the details of the decision, the ruling may not apply to Penn in precisely the same way it would to a state school like Michigan. But some experts say that distinction is only a matter of degrees. "I have no doubt that the people who challenged U. Michigan will mount a challenge in private institutions as well," Lerner said. This is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed affirmative action as it applies to higher education admissions since the controversial 1978 case of Regents of the University at California v. Bakke. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to hold racial quotas for admissions, but that, as Justice Lewis Powell wrote, "The goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race... under some circumstances."

Penn supports affirmative action

The University has joined two "friend of the Court" briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy. Briefs supporting the university must be filed no later than today. The first amicus curiae brief, drafted by Harvard University, is also joined by the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, and Princeton, Duke and Yale universities. It argues that "individualized consideration of race and ethnicity in the admissions process is essential for selective universities to perform their broad educational function." The second brief is the collaborative effort of the deans of eight of the nation's top law schools, including Penn's Michael Fitts. It asks the Court to rule in Michigan's favor, noting that "diversity is a compelling government interest that universities may consider in their admissions processes." Other signatories to the brief include the deans of Harvard, Yale and Columbia law schools. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case, Grutter v. Bollinger, this spring. The justices are widely expected to rule on the constitutionality of affirmative action programs in college admissions. University officials were unavailable for comment last night. Read tomorrow's Daily Pennsylvanian for comprehensive coverage.