Penn supports U. Michigan in court cases

The University and Penn Law School Dean Michael Fitts have both signed separate "friend of the court" briefs to be submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court this week in favor of the University of Michigan. The briefs support Michigan's policy of using race as a factor in admissions, which is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, and also assert that each individual institution should have the right to create its own policy. Yesterday was scheduled as the final day for submission of amicus curiae briefs. However, with Washington, D.C. under a blanket of snow, it is unknown whether the University's briefs have been formally submitted. Penn signed one of the two amicus curiae briefs, written by lawyers at Harvard University, along with Brown, Duke, Princeton and Yale universities, the University of Chicago and Dartmouth College. The brief argues that "academically selective universities have a compelling interest in ensuring that their student bodies incorporate the experiences and talents of the wide spectrum of racial and ethnic groups that make up our society." The second brief, signed by Fitts, is being filed on behalf of individual law school deans at selective institutions around the country, including Georgetown, Duke, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell and New York universities. It states that "diversity is a compelling interest in law school admissions because it furthers the educational mission and benefits all students." At present, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on the cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger involving Michigan's race-based admissions policies in its undergraduate and law schools on April 1. As it now stands, Michigan's undergraduate admissions process works on a point system under which any student receiving more than 150 points is admitted. Before being challenged and declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, the policy stipulated that minority applicants received an additional 20 points in their overall scores, about as much as one overall grade point in a GPA. Penn Vice President and General Counsel Wendy White said that this is one of the most important cases to come before the Supreme Court in years and that colleges and universities around the country have a vested interest in the outcome. "It's a case that will have widespread and dramatic impact on higher education," White said. "The University of Pennsylvania is interested in this extremely important issue as both a matter of public policy and law." This consortium of universities is not by any means the only group submitting an amicus brief. In fact, according to White, the Supreme Court is likely to receive more than 100 amicus briefs regarding this case. In addition to colleges and universities, a group of Fortune 500 companies as well as General Motors Corporation, the American Bar Association and the National Organization of Women have also filed briefs. The total number is likely to surpass the current record of 62 briefs submitted in 1978, according to The New York Times. Perhaps not coincidentally, this record was set the last time affirmative action was an issue before the Supreme Court in the landmark case the University of California Regents v. Bakke, in which the court declared race a legitimate factor in the admissions process, but declined to exactly define the term "affirmative action." Robert Iuliano, acting vice president and general counsel at Harvard University and co-author of the first brief, explained the reasoning behind submitting the brief as a collective unit of institutions, rather than as a single university. "The point is that the concerns that we're addressing and the points of view that we offer [in the brief] is a perspective shared by many institutions that have individualized admissions processes -- race is only one factor among many," he said. "It's not an isolated view held only by Harvard. When a group of institutions combines, it is harder to ignore, the court has to take pause," he added. While a number of schools appear to be backing Michigan's policy, not many have voiced the opposite opinion. "No college or university as far as I know, is involved in the amicus on the other side," White said. "In fact, the total number of [amicus] briefs filed against the University of Michigan is significantly small." Many of those taking Michigan's side argue that race should continue to be a factor in admissions policies, but most, including Penn, do not use the points system that Michigan employs. Still, they do use race as a factor and see it in everyone's best interest to do so. "What we'd like to do is bring as representative a class each year to Penn as we can, one that is reflective of the society we live in," Admissions Dean Lee Stetson said before the brief had been filed. "We want students to be prepared for [a diverse world]. The only way that can be guaranteed is by bringing a diverse student body to Penn." Fitts believes law schools have a similar need to create a diverse community. "I personally believe in the value of diversity in higher education," Fitts said. It is a benefit to everyone "that we have a very diverse student body along a whole range of dimensions including geography, religion, economic status and race." Amicus curiae briefs can be filed by any party with a vested interest in any case and are not designed to litigate the argument. Often though, White said, the court will find the argument that it is looking for in one of the briefs and cite it in the final ruling -- a circumstance that occurred in the Bakke decision, in which the court cited Harvard's amicus brief as an appropriate use of race in an admissions policy. While the Michigan case specifically involves racial discrimination in a public institution, private institutions could be affected. Depending on the scope of the ruling, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act -- the law that extends federal anti-discrimination laws to private institutions receiving federal funding -- could come into play. If history is any indication, White said, Penn could very well be affected by the ruling as an institution that receives federal money. "The private sector believes that the University of Michigan case may have an effect on our policies as well," White said. "Whether [the court] decides broadly or narrowly will alter how the University is affected. University President Judith Rodin, Provost Robert Barchi, Executive Vice President Clifford Stanley and Admissions Dean Lee Stetson could not be reached for comment yesterday.