w v -- t I nr One hundred eleven years of edmonrkil freedom *rni NEWS: 76-DAILY CLASSIFIED: 764-0557 www.michigandally.com Wednesday May 15, 2002 a EV 1 Sixt circuit votes in avor o admission o wicies By Jeremy Berkowitz Daily News Editor JONATHON TRIEST/Daily Rev. Valdiveso Mathews covers his face in disgust while sitting next to Jared Suess, an opposing protester, on the steps of the Michigan Union after yesterday's rally to celebrate the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Inside: Complete coverage of yesterday's rally and Rev. Jesse Jackson's visit to Ann Arbor. Page 4. Supreme Court ecpace ex ted, analysts,.predicet .e # The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals returned a decision yesterday morning in favor of the Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger, stating race could be used as a factor in admissions. By a 5-4 vote, the 6th Circuit reversed a March 2001 decision by U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman that ruled the Law School admission process illegal. But, the battle continues as Center for Individual Rights lawyers, who first filed the lawsuit five years ago, plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. "The district court relied on five factors in concluding that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity was not narrowly tailored," Chief Circuit Judge Boyce Martin . wrote in the majority opinion. "As a initial matter, we have serious reser- vations regarding the district court's consideration of five factors not found in Bakke. ... Nevertheless, we are satisfied that the remain- ing factors relied on by the district court cannot sustain its holding." University Law School attorney Miranda Massie said if the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari to Grutter v. Bollinger, it will have as much significance as the 1954 case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which ruled the con- cept of "separate but equal" education unconsti- tutional. She said she is confident the Supreme Court will uphold the 6th Circuit ruling. "It goes beyond a matter of diversity," Massie said. "It's a major breakthrough for the new civil rights movement." CIR lawyer Kirk Kolbo said today's decision confirms the controversy going on over the issue in the lower courts. He said he felt the dissent of Judge Danny Boggs was very strong and persua- sive. While he said he could not predict how the Supreme Court would vote on the case, he is con- fident they will grant cert. "This case is one that presents issues that cries out for resolution by the Supreme Court," Kolbo said. Judge Martin's main argument in his opinion is the University Law School's admission process is sound in accordance to the 1978 Supreme Court decision Regents of the Univer- sity of California v. Bakke. In Bakke, a divided Supreme Court said race could be used as a fac- tor in university admissions, but forbade the use of quotas in attaining a diverse student body. In particular, in a sole concurring majority opinion, Justice Louis Powell recognized diversity as a compelling state interest that provides an envi- ronment of "speculation, experiment and cre- Al ation." Judge Martin rejected Judge Friedman's argument that diversity was not a compelling state interest. "Because Justice Powell's opinion is binding on this court under Marks v. United States, and because Bakke remains the law until the Supreme Court instructs otherwise, we reject the district court's conclusion and find that the Law School has a compelling interest in achieving a diverse student body," Martin wrote. In the main dissenting opinion, Judge Danny Boggs centrally argued while using race as a fac- tor in admissions that might be necessary in other countries, the United States is bound by the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment, which states no eth- AL nic group or culture should be given special advantages over another. "Instead, the framers of the Four- teenth Amendment decided that our government should abstain from social engineering through explicit racial classifications," Judge Boggs wrote. "The Law School's admissions scheme simply cannot withstand the scrutiny that the Consti- tution demands." But supporters of the Law School's admis- sions process disputed Judge Boggs' point, saying the constitution allows for some impor- tant treatment, if it is justified with compelling reasons. "In this case, the University did an out- standing job in showing how important diver- sity is to higher education," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union Chapter. "Moreover, I think there's a real question about whether there has been any unequal treatment." She added the admissions process is full of objec- tive factors such as geography and whether a candidate's parent is an alumnus of the Uni- versity. "It's never an equal playing field both in terms of past discrimination and selection criteria," she said. But Center for the Study of Popular Culture President David Horowitz said he believes the University Law School's admissions policies admit less academically qualified students. He stated that the problems of minorities in this country come from other issues including pre- vious education. "The race consciousness which the University strives so strenuously to raise I consider to be a reactionary attitude that one day America will get beyond but not with the help of the University of Michigan." Horowitz said. "By having racial preference in admissions, it is basically covering up the real problem which is based in the K-12 system." By Mada Sprow Daily News Editor Now that the decision from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger has been decided in favor of the Uni- versity, most people are left with one question: What now? Since Center for Individual Rights attorney Kirk Kolbo announced yesterday that he will be appealing the decision on behalf of his client, Barbara Grutter, it's safe to say the case is not over - yet. While the case will go on, it is unknown how long it will take for the Supreme Court judges to try the case and reach the verdict. But before the High Court does anything else, they must decide whether to accept the case in the first place. Although they stress that nobody knows for sure what the Supreme Court judges will decide, legal experts agree that the chances of the case being heard within the High Court's walls are greater than the chances of it being dismissed. "The Supreme Court's review is entirely dis- cretionary," said Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University. "But one of the criteria for the Supreme Court granti- ng review is disagreement among the district courts of appeal. ... (With a Supreme Court rul- ing,) the law would be uniform throughout the United States. This case is a good candidate for Supreme Court review." The Supreme Court has already refused to hear appeals in earlier cases dealing with raced-based admissions policies at the Uni- versity of Washington and the University of Texas. Sedler said those refusals only make it more likely the court will hear the University of Michigan's cases. In the past, courts nationwide have ruled dif- ferently on the constitutionality of race-based admissions. The Texas and Washington cases resulted in conflicting judgments from their dis- trict circuit courts of appeals. In Hopwood v. Texas, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against the university's race-based admissions policies, but in Smith v. University of Washing- ton, the 9th Circuit judges ruled that admissions can include race as a factor. The matters are fur- ther complicated by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Johnson v. University of Georgia, which agreed with the Hopwood deci- sion, and the previous decisions dealing with the University of Michigan's own cases. Another major reason why some believe the Supreme Court may lean toward hearing Grut- ter v. Bollinger is that it's the only case of its kind still going through the judicial system, making the case especially important nationally. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the See ANALYSIS, Page 4 Students discuss court case, sense overall approval By Shoshana Hurand Daily Staff Reporter News of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the use of race in the Law School admissions process spread across cam- pus late yesterday morning, bringing forth student opinion and discrussion. The verdict reversed the lower court's judgment to prohib- it the Law School's use of race when consider- ing applications. Many students expressed views in favor of the decision to support race as a factor in admissions. Law student Valerie Krasnoff admitted it is a tution's diversity. The conviction in the importance of educa- tional diversity was supported by Michigan Student Assembly President Sarah Boot. "I love the diversity in this school," Boot said, adding that she believes the rest of the student body also appreciates this element of education at the University. MSA passed a res- olution during the Winter 2002 semester sup- porting the use of race in admissions at the University. Rackham Student Lora Park also empha- sized the positive influence of multiculturalism in education. "I think [the decision] is a good thing SHOSHANA HURAND/Daily Engineering sophomore Kathryn Kerns and LSA sophomores Chris Parres and Nicole Falkauff discuss the use of race as a factor in admissions yesterday on the Diag. "It's definitely something you can't say yes or no to." Some students took issue with the imple- mentation of admissions influenced by race at Duran viewed such measures as discriminatory and said he felt the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. "I don't believe in singling people out on the II :II'UL L itnUrIInJ tr eUUcd-II