Experts: Michigan cases 'monumental'

The U.S. Supreme Court announced its long-awaited and potentially far-reaching decision yesterday to hear two cases concerning admissions at the University of Michigan, constituting the latest development in the nation's raging debate over the legitimacy of affirmative action policies. The outcomes of the cases could drastically impact the current admissions policies of public universities.

The nation's highest court has not ruled on affirmative action in education since the University of California-Davis case in 1978 when it ruled against quota systems but upheld special consideration for minorities.

"You not only have a split among the circuit courts of appeal but you also have a split in terms of the viewpoint of most Americans on affirmative action," said Trina Jones, professor of law and former litigator in the area of employment law. "The Supreme Court is taking up a case that has monumental significance as far as where we stand on affirmative action as a nation."

In Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter, a white female law school applicant to Michigan who was denied admission, has claimed that her 14th Amendment rights were being violated and has challenged the validity of diversity in an academic context as a compelling state interest. Michigan law school's admissions policies were initially declared illegal by a U.S. District Court judge, but the decision was later overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Attorneys general from multiple states pushed for the Supreme Court to establish precedent on the matter in order to foster the uniform development of legally sound admissions policies.

Other justifications of affirmative action--the use of affirmative action to create role models or to achieve social equity--have already been struck down by courts, making the diversity defense one of the last strongholds for affirmative action advocates.

Circuit courts have been divided over the Grutter case, making it a prime candidate for judicial review. However, the second case--which involves two white undergraduate applicants--has not been the subject of any concrete rulings by lower courts. The decision to accept this case may indicate that the Supreme Court justices feel strongly about taking a stance on the issue.

Jerome Culp, professor of law at Duke, anticipates that the court will rule conservatively. "This court has read race narrowly and been very antagonistic to doing remedial things for harms created by histories of determinism," he said.