RACE SHOULD NOT BE FACTOR IN ADMISSIONS (4-3003)

It might have been altogether fitting that the U.S. Supreme Court 
chose Tuesday to hear arguments in a case that will revisit racial 
quota systems for the first time in more than 25 years.

Not since "Bakke v. Board of Regents" in 1978 has the Supreme 
Court had the potential to create such wide-ranging case law 
regarding the use of race or racial quotas. In that decision, the 
court struck down the use of racial quotas in college admission 
policies. But it left open the question whether race could be 
considered at all.

Tuesday was April Fools Day. And the policy adopted by the 
University of Michigan’s Law School to promote ethnic diversity is 
foolish at its core. And that is why the school’s policy is being 
challenged at the highest level.

Sitting in the courtroom were Barbara Grutter, who was denied 
admission to the law school, and Jennifer Gratz and Patrick 
Hamacher, two unsuccessful white applicants to the undergraduate 
college.

But also on hand were civil rights activists, like the ubiquitous 
Jesse Jackson, who has his nose stuck in just about every 
racially-charged issue on the planet. Ultra-liberal Senator Edward 
Kennedy also put in an appearance.

Unfortunately for those who would prefer to settle differences 
such as this one with purely logical and pragmatic considerations, 
the Supreme Court is fairly evenly divided along the liberal-
conservative fault zone, guaranteeing that politics will enter the 
picture. Justice Sandra Day O’Conner is a swing vote, and during 
the arguments she didn’t tip her hand either way.

She did say that race had been given consideration before in 
similar settings, hinting that she might be open to allowing race 
into this one. But then she said that the court had always put a 
strict time limit on any system that allowed race to be used as a 
determiner of preferential treatment. The University of Michigan’s 
policy is on-going, she noted.

Other justices were more open in their opposition to the 
university’s policy. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the policy was 
just a “disguised quota system.” And Justice Antonin Scalia said, 
"Some applicants are given a preference because of their race.”

The policy uses a point system to determine eligibility for 
enrollment. Points are awarded to candidates for merit and 
scholarship, as one would expect, but points are also awarded to 
minorities for being, well, minorities.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the policy "has created a 
separate path and a separate door for preferred minorities." He 
called the extra points divvied out to minority applicants in the 
undergraduate college an “admission ticket” to the university. 

Justice John Paul Stevens asked if the policy might end up 
generating racial hostility. It’s a good point, and one that the 
university denies. But how could it not generate racial hostility?
A university spokesman said admission policy seeks to minimize 
resentment and said there is overwhelming support for it from the 
students. Support? Perhaps there is support from those students 
who are unfairly admitted because they are black or Hispanic, but 
what about those who are otherwise qualified to attend but are 
denied that privilege on the basis of their race? 

There is no predicting the Supreme Court. Sometimes even the 
experts are fooled, and this case will probably come down to a 
five-to-four decision. But if logic finally does win out, this is 
one university policy that is bound for the judicial scrap heap. 
And it will be good riddance.

We should know one way or the other by June.