Race in College Admissions
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DECISIONS BY LEADING CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS SUPPORTS DIVERSITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND BEYOND
Under the auspices of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, a group of the nation's leading constitutional law scholars has issued a legal analysis of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases that finds strong support for race-conscious admissions in higher education and for other types of affirmative action policies. Entitled Diversity Reaffirmed: A Legal Analysis of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases, the 30-page joint statement of constitutional law scholars assesses the impact of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies designed to promote student body diversity.
Among the legal scholars joining the statement are: Erwin Chemerinsky (University of Southern California), Drew Days III (Yale), Richard Fallon (Harvard), Lani Guinier (Harvard), Pamela S. Karlan (Stanford), Kenneth L. Karst (UCLA), Frank Michelman (Harvard), Eric Schnapper (University of Washington), Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard), and Mark Tushnet (Georgetown), as well as Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School and co-director of The Civil Rights Project, and Angelo Ancheta, Director of Legal and Policy Advocacy Programs at The Civil Rights Project.
The joint statement finds solid support in the Supreme Court's Grutter v. Bollinger decision for the use of student body diversity as a justification for policies that employ race as a "plus" factor among many factors considered in selective admissions. The Court's broad language in the Grutter case has important implications for the use of diversity in higher education policy making, as well as in K-12 education and in employment. The joint statement also analyzes the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger, where the Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy for lacking the necessary flexibility and individualized consideration of applicants needed to comply with the constitution.
Diversity Reaffirmed examines many of the new requirements imposed by the Supreme Court on race-conscious admissions, such as incorporating time limits into admissions policies, considering race-neutral alternatives, and weighing the burdens on non-minority students. It also addresses several unanswered questions raised in the wake of the recent decisions, including the legality of admissions policies based on point systems, the use of goals and numerical targets in admissions, the constitutionality of race-exclusive programs, and the legality of diversity policies in K-12 education and in public employment.
CRP's Legal Director Angelo Ancheta notes: "Diversity Reaffirmed reflects a consensus among some of the nation's top legal scholars that the recent University of Michigan decisions are a powerful affirmation of diversity and race-conscious policy making in higher education. The joint statement should be a useful document for colleges and universities, policy makers, attorneys, researchers, and many others engaged in the design of affirmative action programs and other race-conscious policies."
"Diversity Reaffirmed: A Legal Analysis of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases" is available on-line at The Civil Rights Project web site: www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu
Opponents of affirmative action seek Mich. referendum
By Robert E. Pierre, Washington Post March 6, 2004
DETROIT -- Only months after a US Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action in higher education stemming from cases at the University of Michigan, this state has again become an epicenter in the fight over racial preferences.
Opponents of affirmative action have launched a bid to amend Michigan's constitution to strip racial preferences from state university admissions, state hiring, and contracting.
They sought the assistance of Ward Connerly, a regent of the University of California system who has gained national prominence for his efforts to end affirmative action there and in other states. And they have attracted back to Michigan a plaintiff in the challenges to the University of Michigan's admissions system, Jennifer Gratz, to lead the constitutional campaign. The campaigners are trying to gather 317,757 signatures by July 6 to get the proposed ban on November's ballot.
"I absolutely believe that treating people differently because of skin color is wrong," Gratz said. "We've had an overwhelming response. We're answering hundreds of e-mails, and we've had thousands of phone calls."
Some of Michigan's most prominent public officials, including Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, oppose the campaign and argue that it will mean fewer women and minorities in government and reduce diversity on the state's college campuses. But opposition to affirmative action is strong here; a January poll in the Detroit News indicated 64 percent of state residents oppose racial preferences.
Gratz was denied undergraduate admission to the University of Michigan in 1995. Together with another undergraduate admissions applicant, as well as an applicant to the university's law school, they sued, saying they lost out to minorities who had lower grades and test scores.
In June, in the most important affirmative action decision in a generation, the Supreme Court upheld the law school's admissions program, which sought to find a "critical mass" of minorities for its classes, and rejected the undergraduate system which relied on a point system to boost minority enrollment. The net effect of the court's decisions was to permit public universities to use race as a factor in admissions provided they take sufficient care to evaluate individually each applicant's ability to contribute to a diverse student body.
The referendum campaign is Connerly's brainchild. He announced the Michigan effort during a visit to Ann Arbor in the days following the Supreme Court's decision.
"The court decision altered the balance of power between those who are in favor of preferences and those of us who aren't. We will not countenance that . . . distinctions based on race are wrong," Connerly said in an interview.
In 1996, his American Civil Rights Coalition successfully sponsored California's Proposition 209, and two years later won a push for Initiative 200 in Washington state. In Michigan, organizers plan to raise $600,000 and use hundreds of volunteers and paid staffers to collect signatures.
Connerly has already become a primary target, tagged by some as a rabble-rousing outsider.
At a news conference on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Granholm, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit, also a Democrat, and other political leaders stood alongside the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to voice their displeasure.
"We will stand up to [Connerly], stand up to all who oppose affirmative action," Kilpatrick told a crowd of cheering supporters here not long ago.
"We won't allow them to put a black face on a red, white, and blue problem," said Detroit NAACP president the Rev. Wendell Anthony, referring to Connerly, who is African-American. "If we sit quietly and don't speak up, we are in trouble."
State Representative Leon Drolet of suburban Detroit, a Republican who supports the campaign, said he is happy to have Connerly's help but that it is more important what Michigan voters think.
"Our opponents are using weapons of mass distraction," Drolet said. "Every signature is going to be of a Michigan citizen. They don't want to discuss the issue, because they have already lost that debate."
Answer the following Questions
Briefly summarize the first article. How did they support their position?
Briefly summarize the second article. How did they support their position?
Take a stand on this question. Should people be given preferential treatment in college admissions because of their race? Support your position with evidence.
Under the auspices of The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, a group of the nation's leading constitutional law scholars has issued a legal analysis of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases that finds strong support for race-conscious admissions in higher education and for other types of affirmative action policies. Entitled Diversity Reaffirmed: A Legal Analysis of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases, the 30-page joint statement of constitutional law scholars assesses the impact of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies designed to promote student body diversity.
Among the legal scholars joining the statement are: Erwin Chemerinsky (University of Southern California), Drew Days III (Yale), Richard Fallon (Harvard), Lani Guinier (Harvard), Pamela S. Karlan (Stanford), Kenneth L. Karst (UCLA), Frank Michelman (Harvard), Eric Schnapper (University of Washington), Laurence H. Tribe (Harvard), and Mark Tushnet (Georgetown), as well as Christopher Edley, Jr., Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School and co-director of The Civil Rights Project, and Angelo Ancheta, Director of Legal and Policy Advocacy Programs at The Civil Rights Project.
The joint statement finds solid support in the Supreme Court's Grutter v. Bollinger decision for the use of student body diversity as a justification for policies that employ race as a "plus" factor among many factors considered in selective admissions. The Court's broad language in the Grutter case has important implications for the use of diversity in higher education policy making, as well as in K-12 education and in employment. The joint statement also analyzes the limitations imposed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger, where the Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy for lacking the necessary flexibility and individualized consideration of applicants needed to comply with the constitution.
Diversity Reaffirmed examines many of the new requirements imposed by the Supreme Court on race-conscious admissions, such as incorporating time limits into admissions policies, considering race-neutral alternatives, and weighing the burdens on non-minority students. It also addresses several unanswered questions raised in the wake of the recent decisions, including the legality of admissions policies based on point systems, the use of goals and numerical targets in admissions, the constitutionality of race-exclusive programs, and the legality of diversity policies in K-12 education and in public employment.
CRP's Legal Director Angelo Ancheta notes: "Diversity Reaffirmed reflects a consensus among some of the nation's top legal scholars that the recent University of Michigan decisions are a powerful affirmation of diversity and race-conscious policy making in higher education. The joint statement should be a useful document for colleges and universities, policy makers, attorneys, researchers, and many others engaged in the design of affirmative action programs and other race-conscious policies."
"Diversity Reaffirmed: A Legal Analysis of the University of Michigan Affirmative Action Cases" is available on-line at The Civil Rights Project web site: www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu
Opponents of affirmative action seek Mich. referendum
By Robert E. Pierre, Washington Post March 6, 2004
DETROIT -- Only months after a US Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action in higher education stemming from cases at the University of Michigan, this state has again become an epicenter in the fight over racial preferences.
Opponents of affirmative action have launched a bid to amend Michigan's constitution to strip racial preferences from state university admissions, state hiring, and contracting.
They sought the assistance of Ward Connerly, a regent of the University of California system who has gained national prominence for his efforts to end affirmative action there and in other states. And they have attracted back to Michigan a plaintiff in the challenges to the University of Michigan's admissions system, Jennifer Gratz, to lead the constitutional campaign. The campaigners are trying to gather 317,757 signatures by July 6 to get the proposed ban on November's ballot.
"I absolutely believe that treating people differently because of skin color is wrong," Gratz said. "We've had an overwhelming response. We're answering hundreds of e-mails, and we've had thousands of phone calls."
Some of Michigan's most prominent public officials, including Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, oppose the campaign and argue that it will mean fewer women and minorities in government and reduce diversity on the state's college campuses. But opposition to affirmative action is strong here; a January poll in the Detroit News indicated 64 percent of state residents oppose racial preferences.
Gratz was denied undergraduate admission to the University of Michigan in 1995. Together with another undergraduate admissions applicant, as well as an applicant to the university's law school, they sued, saying they lost out to minorities who had lower grades and test scores.
In June, in the most important affirmative action decision in a generation, the Supreme Court upheld the law school's admissions program, which sought to find a "critical mass" of minorities for its classes, and rejected the undergraduate system which relied on a point system to boost minority enrollment. The net effect of the court's decisions was to permit public universities to use race as a factor in admissions provided they take sufficient care to evaluate individually each applicant's ability to contribute to a diverse student body.
The referendum campaign is Connerly's brainchild. He announced the Michigan effort during a visit to Ann Arbor in the days following the Supreme Court's decision.
"The court decision altered the balance of power between those who are in favor of preferences and those of us who aren't. We will not countenance that . . . distinctions based on race are wrong," Connerly said in an interview.
In 1996, his American Civil Rights Coalition successfully sponsored California's Proposition 209, and two years later won a push for Initiative 200 in Washington state. In Michigan, organizers plan to raise $600,000 and use hundreds of volunteers and paid staffers to collect signatures.
Connerly has already become a primary target, tagged by some as a rabble-rousing outsider.
At a news conference on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Granholm, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit, also a Democrat, and other political leaders stood alongside the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to voice their displeasure.
"We will stand up to [Connerly], stand up to all who oppose affirmative action," Kilpatrick told a crowd of cheering supporters here not long ago.
"We won't allow them to put a black face on a red, white, and blue problem," said Detroit NAACP president the Rev. Wendell Anthony, referring to Connerly, who is African-American. "If we sit quietly and don't speak up, we are in trouble."
State Representative Leon Drolet of suburban Detroit, a Republican who supports the campaign, said he is happy to have Connerly's help but that it is more important what Michigan voters think.
"Our opponents are using weapons of mass distraction," Drolet said. "Every signature is going to be of a Michigan citizen. They don't want to discuss the issue, because they have already lost that debate."
Answer the following Questions
Briefly summarize the first article. How did they support their position?
Briefly summarize the second article. How did they support their position?
Take a stand on this question. Should people be given preferential treatment in college admissions because of their race? Support your position with evidence.
posted by ammartinek at 7:42 AM
0 comments
