Previous

||

This Issue

||

Next

Around the Quads

Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action

On June 23, the Supreme Court delivered a split ruling in two cases challenging the affirmative action policies in admissions procedures at the University of Michigan. President Lee C. Bollinger, who was Michigan’s president at the time the cases were brought, was the named defendant in both cases. The plaintiffs were white applicants who were denied admission and claimed discrimination.

In the case involving law school admissions policies, Grutter v. Bollinger, the court upheld, in a 5–4 decision, the school’s policy of considering race, in a non-specific manner, when admitting students.

In the case involving undergraduate admissions, Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruled in a 6–3 decision that it is unconstitutional for a public institution to use a pre-set point-value system to account for race in admissions procedures. The Court found that the point system used by the Michigan undergraduate admissions office violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The decisions confirm a 1978 ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that determined that race could be a factor in deciding admissions, but there could not be quotas.

Bollinger, a staunch supporter of affirmative action, declared the joint decisions “a huge victory for the future of American education and society.” As for its impact on Columbia, he said, “Columbia has a long-standing commitment to diversity, and we are glad that the Court has affirmed its importance and the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. We will continue to pursue admissions policies that better prepare all students for the increasingly diverse workplace and society in which we live.”

But, in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal on June 20, before the decisions were made, Bollinger warned, “We must recognize a hard reality: With present and future appointments to the judicial branch, with such determined foes to affirmative action who I predict will not relent in the face of a defeat, and with cautious legal counsel warning university presidents of the risks and burdens of defending lawsuits (which, I can testify, are extraordinary), we properly should worry that a victory here and now will be pyrrhic.”

S.J.B.

Previous

||

This Issue

||

Next