U.S. Supreme Court decisions validate campus affirmative action policies

BY LISA TREI

Stanford's admission practices have been reinforced by last month's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action at the University of Michigan, campus authorities said.

The rulings, announced June 23, permit race to be considered as a positive factor in college admissions.

Robin Mamlet discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decisions on affirmative action. Photo: L.A. Cicero

Robin Mamlet, dean of admission and financial aid, said the decisions reaffirm the way Stanford selects its student class because race is just one of "a whole host" of factors considered in reviewing applications. "Many aspects of diversity are considered, not just race," she said. "The primary criterion is who has the capacity and potential to contribute to Stanford and the world beyond our gates."

The court ruled 5-4 in Grutter v. Bollinger that race may considered as a positive factor in admission to the University of Michigan's law school as part of a narrowly tailored program designed to foster educational diversity. However, in a second ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger, six out of nine justices held that the university's undergraduate program failed the court's narrow tailoring requirement because it automatically awarded 20 out of 150 points on an admissions scale to African American, Latino and Native American students. Rather, the court said, race may be considered in furthering diversity in the context of an "individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file" -- a process akin to Stanford's admission programs. Although Stanford is a private institution, it is subject to the court's decisions because it receives federal funding.

"What this does is reassure Stanford that its own affirmative action policies will remain legal," said law Professor Pamela Karlan, a constitutional law scholar.

As a private university, Stanford may consider race in its admission practices. In contrast, public colleges in California are barred from using it under Proposition 209.

After the rulings were announced, President John Hennessy stated he was "very pleased" that the court had affirmed the principle articulated in 1978 by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that diversity is a "compelling interest" in admissions. "Our admission programs at Stanford are consistent with the individualized determination that was reaffirmed today by the court," Hennessy stated. "Without exception, the university seeks to admit students with the potential to excel at Stanford and later in life."

In the months leading up to the ruling, the university had joined an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan's policies. Karlan also wrote a brief for the Association of American Law Schools. More than 50 briefs were filed, most supporting the university. Many came from industry and the military, which argued that a racially diverse educational environment was essential to prepare students to participate effectively in society. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her opinion for the majority: "Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized."

On campus, administrators and faculty reacted to the endorsement of the use of race in creating a diverse student body. "The good news is that Stanford has been doing everything right concerning undergraduate admissions," said LaDoris Cordell, vice provost for campus relations and special counsel to the president. "I think that Stanford now is the model in how admissions are conducted."

Mamlet added that the rulings make Stanford's admission program less vulnerable to criticism. "Does this change what we do at Stanford?" she asked. "No. But I feel it's very reassuring to have the highest court in the land reaffirm what we do."

Richard Yuen, assistant dean and director of the Asian American Activities Center, said the rulings may have a ripple effect in furthering diversity. "The decisions send the message that we do need changes ... that we still have work to do in diversifying higher education," he said. "Our undergraduate population has reached a significant level of diversity [but], hopefully, these rulings will have a positive impact on diversifying our faculty and graduate students." Of the 170 Asian faculty members on campus, he said, half are based in the Medical School and a quarter work in engineering. "We're finding fewer Asians in the social sciences and humanities at Stanford," he said.

History Professor Albert Camarillo acted as an expert witness on behalf of the University of Michigan's undergraduate admission program. He said the Supreme Court decisions would have little impact on how Stanford selects undergraduates. "But I think you will see challenges to universities that use a formulaic process," he said. "Any university that uses a point system will quickly abandon it."

History Professor Clay Carson, a leading civil rights expert, agreed that the decisions would not affect Stanford greatly because its admission policies appear to be in line with what the Supreme Court permits. "What diversity is basically about is opening up the privileges enjoyed by the white middle and upper classes to a relatively small minority of people from other groups who were excluded before," he said. "I don't like the diversity argument. The basic question should be, 'Do African Americans get equal access to educational opportunities as white Americans?' No." While opposing affirmative action would be a step backward, Carson said, the policy does not address the problem of inherited disadvantage. "It opens up an escape valve for a small number of African Americans," said Carson, who directs the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project. "It makes African American heritage a commodity as long as you haven't been oppressed by it."

Shelby Steele, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, took the argument a step further and criticized the court's rulings as a "very dark day" for African Americans and Hispanics. "I couldn't think of a worse decision," he said. "It's a vote of no confidence from the Supreme Court that our best and brightest are unable to compete on an even playing field. There is nothing at Stanford that is worth minorities being stigmatized in this way."

In her opinion, O'Connor cautioned that affirmative action will outlive its usefulness. "Twenty-five years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary," she wrote.

Karlan and Cordell are not so sure. "If we go on the way we are with inadequate support for poor people and education, 25 years from now we'll be in a similar situation to today," Karlan said. "Affirmative action doesn't help the poorest of the poor. The people who benefit from affirmative action are the luckiest minorities."

Cordell said the court's decisions allow her to "breathe a sigh of relief," but she expects people will try to overturn them. "This is a nation obsessed with race," she said. "It's going to take a lot to bring about change. But I have faith in the justice system. The push for diversity will continue. Twenty-five years down the road we will still be fighting the good fight."