Ivy League Uproar: Student essay at Harvard incites a national debate (in National News) Addicted to Big Money... and Bad Odds: Casinos target Asian Americans (in Bay Area News) Japan's Financial Crisis: Is there a way out? (in Business) The First Steps: Young Japanese artists make their marks on the international map (in A&E) Emil Amok: The Plane, the Plane -- A theory of negative gravity. (in Opinion)

Affirmative Action on Trial

Dirstrict judge rules against race-conscious law school admissions policy

By Ji Hyun Lim

Though the Supreme Court ruled that race could be used as one of many factors in deciding college admissions some 23 years ago, the decision has hardly quieted the affirmative action debate. And as with other groups, the API community is split over the issue.

On March 27, U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman ordered the University of Michigan to abolish its practice of admitting African Americans, Latinos and Native Americans based on different standards than those for Asian American and white students. His ruling contradicts another recent case, in which U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan said the University of Michigan’s race-conscious undergraduate admission policy was constitutional.

Those decisions have no immediate national impact. However, both have further fueled the affirmative action controversy — and many believe the time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to take a second look at the issue in order to clarify the law.

University of Michigan officials had argued in Grutter v. Bollinger, filed in 1997, that their law school admissions policy was based on the goal of diversity.

“Race has a significant impact on people’s experiences and their relationship to the legal system,” said Jeffrey S. Lehman, the dean of University of Michigan Law School. “What makes a lawyer a very good lawyer is that they are able to see a problem from many different perspectives at one time.”

He added: “Having a diverse student body helps us do that.”

The plaintiff, Barbara Grutter, alleged that she was denied a slot in the law school because less-qualified people of color had been given preferential treatment.

In 2000, some 38 percent of white students who applied were admitted, while 35 percent of African Americans applicants were also granted slots. Similarly, the acceptance ratios were 38 percent for Native Americans, 32 percent for Latinos, and 30 percent for Asian American applicants.

In the end, 85 percent of the student body was white or Asian American, and 15 percent black or Hispanic. Without affirmative action, the class would have been just 4 percent African American and Latino, experts said in the trial.

Asian Americans seem to be caught in the middle of the conflict. Though minorities, APIs are generally not placed in “minority pools,” during admissions processes.

That partly explains why some Asian Americans may be against affirmative action, said Wonkee Moon, president of the Asian Pacific Law School Association (APLSA).

He points out, though, the diversity of opinion within the API community.

“For me personally and many of the members of my organization, we actually support it,” he said. “In the classroom perspective, other people of color definitely contribute to classroom discussion and bring in viewpoints that other students, like Asian Americans and whites, can’t bring to the classroom.”

With Judge Friedman’s injunction that puts an end to the law school’s affirmative action policy, other methods to ensure diversity have been suggested, such as a lottery to select among students who meet minimum criteria. APLSA will also look into the matter by sponsoring panel discussions, featuring speakers such as Howard Law School Professor Frank Wu.

“One thing we’re trying to do is get together with the other minority student organizations and really dissect and criticize [the issue] in order to better defend our viewpoint,” Moon said.

Professor Vic Amar of the University of California, Hastings Law School, pointed out that since the decision was made in a trial court, the ruling will only affect University of Michigan. For the case to have national consequences, it would have to be tried in the 6th Circuit Court and then taken by the Supreme Court. That decision could supercede state law.

Since the Supreme Court’s last ruling in 1978, a number of states have passed laws that have essentially struck down universities’ diversity policies. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action in all state institutions, including public colleges. In 1998, Washington state, through referendum, barred public universities from taking race into consideration to determine who would gain entrance. And in 1999, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush issued an executive order banning racial preferences.

Currently, the University of Michigan administration is requesting a stay on Judge Friedman’s injunction, which has brought the admission process to a standstill. The school is planning to file a petition to finish this term’s admission season with existing admission criteria; however, the university has not received a response from Judge Friedman.

Said Lehman: “This issue is about the quality of education and preparation that we are providing for our society’s leaders. In a country that is racially and ethnically diverse, it’s vital that our nation’s leaders learn about our legal system that is in itself diverse.”