In June of 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled verdicts in two cases involving how affirmative action is used in higher education at the University of Michigan. (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009). The outcomes of these two cases affect the role race can play in the admission policies of Universities and Colleges in the United States, and make statements as to what is legally ethical in this important issue of equality and diversity.
The Two Cases
In the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher claimed that the University of Michigan unfairly denied them undergraduate admission in favor of equal orlesser qualified minorities who were given a heavily weighted advantage on the basis of race alone. The undergraduate school used a point system with 100 points needed for admission, awarding 20 points for a minority race, while only giving 12 points for a perfect score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Designed to promote equality and diversity at the University, it was found that a substantial number of qualified white students were denied admissions due solely to the 20 point minority advantage. (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009). The plaintiffs argued that students with the same grades and scores do not have the same opportunity for admittance when minorities are given such a heavily weighted advantage, which effectively “set[s] aside seats for minority applicants” (Steinberg, 2003, ¶ 14) which is prohibited by the Bakke ruling of 1978. (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009).
In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, Barbara Grutter argued that the University of Michigan Law School primarily favors certain minority racial groups over other racial groups who have otherwise similar qualifications. The Law School does not use a point system, but rather “engages in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file, giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant might contribute to a diverse educational environment.” (“Grutter v. Bollinger: Excerpts,” 2003, ¶ 26).
Two Different Outcomes
The Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 6-3, in favor of the plaintiffs in Gratz v. Bollinger. The decision agreed that the point system used by the University of Michigan gives preference to minorities over equally or potentially more qualified non-minority students. (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009). According to The Chronicle of Higher Education (2007) the University of Michigan awarded $10,000 each, to Gratz andHamacher, in February of 2007.
By contrast, the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 5-4, in favor of the defendant in Grutter v. Bollinger. The decision agreed that the Law School assesses each application individually, and uses a narrow enough of a margin to enhance a diverse student population without violating the rights of other students. (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009).
Implications
These two cases and their outcomes raise the question of how to improve the diversity of students in Colleges and Universities without compromising the rights of all students. This is an ethical issue in adult education that does not have any easy answers. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was quoted by “Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases” (2009) as saying, " In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry… it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity" and that “educational benefits… flow from a diverse student body.” (¶ 6). Justice Clarence Thomas said, “Every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provisions of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.” (“Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” 2009, ¶ 7).
Is it ethical to use race as a qualifier in order to grow diversity on College and University campuses? Is this an issue destined for all time, or merely a temporary measure attempting to compensate for past injustices and prejudices? Justice O’Connor believes, according to “Supreme Court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases,” (2009) this is a necessary, temporary measure.
These rulings allow some gauge of minority consideration, but puts a limit on them, although does not clearly define the line between them. Other lawsuits may be likely after the University of Michigan paid Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher four years after the Supreme Court case. (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2007).
Future Considerations and Recommendations
What does this mean for the future of higher education? This author hopes the day is coming when people will not care about race or color of skin, and the issue of affirmative action will not be necessary. She believes that the place to begin is grade school and even younger. Measures need to be taken to give all K-12 schools the money and resources to meet equal high standards of quality education, which includes adequate facilities, technology resources, teachers, and administrators. Community activities need to be created that bring people of all races and colors together, beginning at a young age, so that by the time a person reaches college age, she is on equal ground in opportunity, to apply wherever her talents and interests take her.
This author embraces, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. passionately said in a speech for which he is remembered, “I have a dream that my… children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (King, 1963, ¶20)
Conclusion
The world is made up of diverse peoples. Some think diversity creates conflict, while others recognize that diversity enriches everyone. Because of past prejudices, some minorities in the United States suffered injustices, and lacked opportunities for education andprosperity. Actions were taken in an effort to equalize those opportunities, sometimes to the extreme. The question of whether or not the present can compensate for the past gets asked, but to date, no better alternative has risen to help correct the problem. In higher education, the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger, and Grutter v. Bollinger set landmark Supreme Court rulings to set some standards on the use of race in admissions policies, though there remains some margin of ambiguity. This is an area where law, politics, and ethics must continue to find common ground for the best of all people.
References
Grutter v. Bollinger: Excerpts (2003). World News Digest. Retrieved September 15, 2009,
from Facts on File World News Digest database.
King, M.L., Jr. (1963). American rhetoric: Martin Luther King Jr.. Retrieved September 15,
2009, from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm
Schimdt, P. (2007). U. of Michigan will pay settlements in 'Gratz v. Bollinger' suit.(students
Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(24).
Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Apollo Library – University of Phoenix.
Steinberg, J. (2003, February 23). 3 look to college suit to show their merits; plaintiffs hope to
prove they belonged.(Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter and Patrick Hamacher sue Univ. of
Michigan for race-based admissions policy that led to their rejections as white students.
The New York Times. Retrieved from Apollo Library – University of Phoenix.
Supreme court rules on Michigan affirmative action cases (2009). World News Digest.
Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Facts on File World News Digest database.
Update: School Desegregation (2006). Facts on File: Issues & Controversies.
Retrieved September 15, 2009, from Facts on File Issues and Controversies database.
Affirmative Action and Diversity
Please wait...