U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard oral arguments Tuesday on admissions policies at the University of Michigan while people gathered outside the building to express their opinions. The crowd seemed largely in support of the use of affirmative action.
Justices have strayed from this issue for the past 25 years after quotas were outlawed in the University of California v. Bakke decision, which legally left universities enough room to use affirmative action in admissions policies like those in place at UM. Throughout hearings, the plaintiffs’ and school’s lawyers were heavily questioned by the justices on the matter.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is considered a key vote in affirmative-action cases. During hearings she said the UM law schools make many choices in picking students and questioned aloud why race could not also be used in these decisions.
“They’re using stereotypes in an effort, they say, to break down stereotypes,” Solicitor General Theodore Olson said.
Olson went as far as to almost suggest that affirmative action should be ended all together. O’Connor in response asked him whether the Court should use these cases to ban the use of affirmative action.
In contrast, Kirk Kolbo, a lawyer for the white applicants who were denied admission to UM and its law school, told justices that the goal of promoting diversity on campuses is not a compelling reason to justify giving preferential treatment to minorities.
The three plaintiffs were rejected from the class to which they applied while what they call “less-qualified minorities” were accepted.
The Court’s ruling, due in July, could potentially end any state-sponsored affirmative action or rewrite the rules concerning in what situations race can be a factor in any government decisions.
As hearings progressed, more than 5,000 protestors gathered outside the court shouting slogans and holding banners.
“They say Jim Crow, we say hell no,” several protestors chanted.
University of Wisconsin alum and member of the U.S. House of Representatives Tammy Baldwin was among the protestors Tuesday. Baldwin traveled with a number of UW Law School alums and current UW law professors to the Court. She said she was pleased to be invited to protest as a UW alumna rather than a Congresswoman.
“It was fun to go with a different hat on,” Baldwin said.
Baldwin, along with the other members of her group, marched holding banners reading statements such as “UW Law Alums Support Affirmative Action.”
Baldwin also stated that she feels that she is affected by affirmative action.
“There is a direct benefit to being able to be with a wide cross-section of people in a work environment,” she said.
But some UW law students say they don’t think UM’s current admissions policy is a good idea.
“I think it’s problematic when race is used as a heuristic for economic or social status, which is topically the goal of these admission processes,” UW law student Ben Krautkramer said.
The opinions of the protesting UW law professors and other officials do not present the view of the UW as a whole but rather the views of many of the protestors present.
Currently, UM’s undergraduate-admissions policy awards minorities 20 points out of a total of 150 points possible on an applicant-rating system. To gain admissions into Michigan’s law school, a formula is used that places less emphasis on race. Admissions officers attempt to ensure that each class has a “critical mass” of approximately 10 to 12 percent minority enrollment.
Julia Kraschnewski, News Content Editor, contributed to this report.
