Pa. legislators file brief supporting Michigan

The amicus curiae briefs in support of the University of Michigan continue to flow into the U.S. Supreme Court this week, with a group of state legislators led by state representative Mark Cohen (D.-Phila.) adding their voices to the discourse. An amicus curiae brief, literally meaning "friend of the court," is filed by an independent entity or individual on behalf of one of the parties involved in a case. Generally, these briefs are filed by groups with a vested interest in the outcome, as either a matter of law or policy. Affirmative action and the ability to use race as a factor in admissions is the issue in question in the two Michigan cases before the Supreme Court -- Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. These cases are expected to redefine the 1978 ruling in the case of University of California Regents v. Bakke, which declared the use of quotas in college admissions policies unconstitutional but allowed race to continue to be used as a factor in admissions decisions. Cohen's amicus brief, filed on Tuesday, will join an estimated 70 other filings in support of Michigan. Politicians, academics, businesses and military personnel are among those who have also filed briefs. Cohen's brief was supported by 36 other current and former Pennsylvania legislators that include State Representative and former Speaker of the House H. William DeWeese, former State Representative and former Speaker of the House Leroy Irvis and State Senator and former President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Mellow, as well as the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Pennsylvania State Association of Black Clergy. According to Michael Cassidy, executive director of the Office of the Democratic Caucus Chairman, Cohen has been a longtime proponent of racial diversity. "In Mark's case, for a long time he has had strong feelings on race relations," said George Buddy, information specialist for the house of the Democratic Caucus. "He has had a long-standing concern abut diversity in our college campuses." "We believe schools should have the right to determine who to let in -- not just to integrate, but to provide for the broadest diversity possible," said Eric Fillman, co-writer of the brief and legal counsel to Cohen. Earlier this week, Penn signed a brief submitted by Harvard University that was also signed by Brown, Duke, Princeton and Yale universities, the University of Chicago and Dartmouth College. Penn Law School Dean Michael Fitts, and a group of 259 Penn Law students, were also signatories in separate briefs filed earlier this week. But according to Cassidy, Cohen "wasn't aware" of these briefs, as all parties faced the same deadline. But due to the weather, the Supreme Court extended the original Tuesday deadline through today. Despite the fact that all supporters of Cohen's amicus brief are Democrats, Fillman said the case is "not a party issue across the board." "It is a party issue to some degree, but not just Democrats support affirmative action," Fillman said. "Across the board, it is acceptable. "This group of people has recognized the necessity to allow schools to determine who they are going to teach and to ensure not just racial diversity, but academic diversity," he continued. "It used to be that only those who were rich and well-connected could go to college. We have come a long way to make higher education available." Fillman pointed to the comparatively high number of amicus briefs submitted supporting Michgan's policies, which he estimated were five times that number of briefs advocating abolishing race in admissions decisions. Despite these numbers, President Bush has taken a firm stance against using race as a factor in admission. "President Bush has taken such a hard line that it scares us," Cassidy said. "If the court rules against the University of Michigan, it could throw out at law schools, or any college level, the programs used to racially diversify." Cassidy asserted that prohibiting the use of race in admissions "tramples on legislative authority and tramples on academic freedom" and "makes it more difficult" for universities to develop policies to promote racial diversity in their student bodies. Representatives of the colleges and universities that have filed amicus briefs concur with Cassidy. "All of the universities shared a common rationale in that they believe it is necessary for universities to be granted significant autonomy in determining their admissions policies," said Beverly Ledbetter, general counsel at Brown. "This includes the search for diversity -- diversity in all aspects." Beth Harris, general counsel at the University of Chicago, echoed Ledbetter's sentiments. "There is a widespread feeling that it is critical to be able to recruit a diverse student body and to continue the admissions practices that we've been using," Harris said. "We are hopeful that the court will uphold the decision in Bakke and will continue to allow universities to use race as a factor in admissions."