Careful Use of Race Is OK, High Court Tells Colleges
CONSTANCE HOLDEN
Science 06/27/2003
U.S. universities are hailing this week's rulings by the Supreme Court on the value of race-conscious admissions as a vote of confidence in their efforts to increase diversity. But although the court upheld the principle of taking race into consideration in college admissions, it rejected a numerical system at the University of Michigan that gives a substantial advantage to minority candidates. As a result, many universities may be forced to spend more time weighing the qualifications of each applicant.
"We are elated. This is a huge victory for higher education," says Michigan's president, Mary Sue Coleman. "I know all universities are breathing a great sigh of relief today."
Plaintiffs' groups are not happy. "Universities have been given a green light to continue the corrupt practice of favoring some applicants and disfavoring others because of their race," says Bradford Wilson, director of the National Association of Scholars in Princeton, New Jersey. The case stirred unprecedented interest, with amicus curiae briefs filed by hundreds of educational organizations as well as large corporations and members of the military.
The rulings (www.supremecourtus.gov) come in two 1997 cases brought by white students challenging Michigan's admissions policies, one involving its undergraduate college and the other its law school. In its first pronouncement on the subject since an equally high-profile case that split the court in 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the high court came down firmly in favor of "diversity" as the legal rationale for taking race into account in university admissions. Before that, proponents of affirmative action had often argued that it was intended to remedy past discrimination against African Americans and other minorities.
The court voted 5-4 on Monday to uphold the law school's multifaceted approach to achieving a "critical mass." Its vote to overturn Michigan's mechanistic system of adding 20 points to a candidate's application (100 is required for admission) based solely on race was 6-3. Although the justices split on Michigan's practices, says Alex Dreier, an attorney at the Washington, D.C., firm of Hogan & Hartson who helped write the amicus brief for the American Council on Education, the opinions are consistent with each other.
The law school opinion, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution permits the school's "narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest." But the point system used for undergraduate admissions is "not narrowly tailored," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the second decision, because it makes race a "decisive" factor in many minority admissions. That form of scorekeeping exceeds the use of race as a "plus" in the context of "individualized consideration" of applicants, the court explained.
Coleman says it won't be a problem for Michigan to replace the point system with a more individualized assessment. "We may have to hire some more people, but we're happy to do that," she says.
Some schools have had considerable success doing exactly that. Rice University in Houston takes what mathematics professor Richard Tapia calls a "holistic approach" to every applicant. "We read the entire folder. Sure it takes time, but it's the only way to really get to know a student." Tapia practices what he preaches: Since 1998, eight of the 23 Ph.D.s awarded in the mathematics department have gone to underrepresented minorities (Mexican Americans, African Americans, and Native Americans). Wilson says such an individualized approach, however, "presents a huge administrative challenge" to large and selective places such as Michigan "that use race preferences to overcome the credentials gap between whites and Asians, on the one hand, and blacks and Hispanics on the other."
A statement from 28 higher education groups that backed Michigan's policies praises the court for "[upholding] racial and ethnic diversity as a compelling state interest [and reaffirming] the importance of giving colleges and universities leeway in the admissions process." Coleman says she believes that "this overturns Hopwood [a 1996 federal circuit court ruling that outlawed race-sensitive admissions in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana], so Texas can go back to using affirmative action." Indeed, University of Texas President Larry Faulkner says he expects the school to factor in race in future admissions and financial aid decisions. Wilson sees a different future, however, forecasting "more litigation and, given the unpopularity of racial discrimination, perhaps more popular initiatives like Proposition 209 in California," which outlawed affirmative action in state higher education.
From his perspective at a "Hopwood" university, Tapia occupies the middle ground in interpreting the court's latest ruling. "Simple doesn't work when it comes to judging an applicant's ability to be successful," he says. "That's what I've always believed, and now that's what the court seems to be saying."