Supreme Court To Rule on Race in Admissions

In a move that could spark sweeping changes in college and graduate school admissions procedures, the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will decide if universities can use race as a factor in admitting students.

Though the case before the court centers around admissions policies at the University of Michigan, it carries broad implications since many schools—including Harvard—follow a similar practice of considering race.

This case marks the first time the nation’s highest court will consider affirmative action in admissions since the landmark Bakke case in 1978. Though that case involved the University of California, Harvard filed a friend-of-the-court brief detailing the “Harvard plan,” in which race is considered one of many so-called “plus factors” when looking at a candidate’s application.

In a 5-4 decision, the court prohibited the use of quotas in admissions but did not officially pass judgment on the Harvard model of using race as one factor.

In the current case, if the high court strikes down Michigan’s policy, “it would be a serious loss for the richness of educational experiences for all students,” co-chair of the Harvard Civil Rights Project (CRP) Gary A. Orfield wrote in an e-mail.

Universities should be allowed to use race as a factor, because other criteria are tightly linked to students’ family background and economic status, said Orfield, professor of education and social policy at the Graduate School of Education.

CRP filed an amicus brief when the case was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In May that court upheld Michigan’s policy and dismissed the complaints of white students who brought suit after they were denied admission.

And CRP plans to file another brief with the Supreme Court, detailing social science data supporting Michigan’s policy, according to Legal Director Angelo N. Ancheta.

“It’s an important signal that the court is willing to finally address the question they’ve been dodging for the last couple of years,” Ancheta said.

Harvard admissions directors were unavailable for comment yesterday, but CRP officials said a decision against Michigan would probably cause a change in Harvard’s admissions procedures.

“If the Michigan plan is struck down, I expect Harvard will abandon or at least revise its current policy,” Ancheta said.

University President Lawrence H. Summers declined to comment specifically on the University’s future involvement in the case yesterday. But he said he supports Michigan’s policy.

“We strongly believe that race is one of many factors universities should be able to take into account in a well-designed admissions process that promotes the vital educational interest in diversity,” Summers said. “We hope to be helpful in persuading the Supreme Court to affirm this important proposition.”

Policies like Harvard’s and Michigan’s are not necessarily the best way to achieve the educational benefits of diversity, said Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. ’53, who encountered criticism two years ago when he linked grade inflation to the influx of black students in the 1960s.

“Affirmative action has taught people that universities are about social justice instead of academic merit,” Mansfield said. “I like President Bush’s phrase, ‘It’s brought about the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.’ Especially now when the criterion of diversity is used, it amounts to a quota system.”

“Harvard is probably the best case because our black students hardly need affirmative action,” he added. “It’s other universities that abuse this principle... In almost every case universities go far beyond tipping the balance—it’s decisive.”

The unusual strength of its applicant pool would likely insulate schools like Harvard Law School from declines in minority student populations even if the Michigan policy is struck down, said Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree Jr.

“The good news in the case is that both parties have spent a fair amount of time focusing on the Harvard plan for diversity in admissions, and I suspect the court will find a good reason to look at the Harvard model as one example of how to achieve excellence in higher education,” he said.

But Ancheta said minority populations at many other schools would drop significantly if the court rules against Michigan, as has already happened at the University of California, where a state referendum prohibited the use of affirmative action in admissions decisions.

He speculated that the decision of the court will be very close and depend on the swing votes of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy.

“At this point, there are plenty of legal arguments on both sides dealing with Bakke and mixed results in lower courts, so the decision is really going to turn on how the swing votes go,” Ancheta said.

Oral arguments will be held in two to three months, and the court should reach its decision by June.