U. of Michigan students organize to fight amicus brief
By Ji Hyun Lim | AsianWeek Staff Writer
In an attempt to quell discontent with the outcomes of the undergraduate Gratz v. Bollinger and law school Grutter v. Bollinger cases, President Bush filed an amicus curiae brief against the University of Michigan to overturn its existing race-conscious admission programs on Jan. 15.
The faculty of the University of Michigan, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPALC) and the University of Michigan’s Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA) were outraged by President Bush’s stance on this issue.
The opponents to the brief have been galvanizing support to challenge President Bush, arguing that ethnic and racial diversity enhances education and prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce. NAPALC and University of Michigan students are currently working on an amicus brief to file with the sixth circuit by February 2003.
The Gratz v. Bollinger case began in October 1997 when Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hammacher sued the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Duggan rejected the claim that race-conscious undergraduate admission was unconstitutional, and upheld the University of Michigan’s admissions system — ruling that it is “narrowly tailored” to attaining a diverse student body because it does not just focus on race. Both the plaintiffs and the University of Michigan appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
In December 1997, plaintiff Barbara Grutter filed a similar lawsuit challenging race-based admissions at the University of Michigan Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger. Judge Friedman declared the admissions process unconstitutional, but then in May 2002, a deeply divided Sixth Circuit appeals court reversed Judge Friedman’s decision and upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the law school’s admissions system.
As a result, the University of Michigan continues to use a 150-point system that provides 20 points to a student based on ethnic/racial background.
In a press conference in the Roosevelt room, Bush addressed his reasons for filing such a brief. He claimed that the University of Michigan’s “quota system” unfairly rewards or penalizes students based “solely on race.” President Bush said adamantly that although he was an advocate of “diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education,” the University of Michigan’s method of reaching diversity was “fundamentally flawed.”
Said President Bush, “ … the University of Michigan’s admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based on their race, and establishes numerical targets for incoming students, are unconstitutional. Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law.”
According to Terry Ao, staff attorney at NAPALC, Bush has mischaracterized the affirmative action system at University of Michigan as a “quota system.” She claims that the use of such words elicits emotional responses for the American constituency and that the University of Michigan takes into consideration multiple factors, including academic achievement, geography, legacy and extracurricular activities. She argues that providing points to an underrepresented group is part of enriching the student body.
“There’s so many components in a person like their heart, spirit, creative talents and leadership ability — things that can’t be graded,” Ao points out. “We believe that diversity is a compelling interest. It is something we should strive for.”
Moreover, NAPALC reports that a 2001 pilot study of the National Asian American Political Survey found that APAs were overwhelmingly supportive of affirmative action. The poll showed that 72 percent of the respondents believed that affirmative action was a “good thing.”
Len Kamdang, chair of APALSA’s amicus committee, agrees that APA law students unanimously side with the University of Michigan. He claims that diverse backgrounds break down stereotypes and allow students to bring in broad ranges of experiences.
“[Diversity brings] unique perspectives and blends insights,” Kamdang said. “If there are one or two minority students, no one person should have to speak for a group. We’re not looking at racial groups as monolithic [entities].”
Kamdang points out that APALSA, the Black Law Students Association and the National Latino Law Students Association have been working cooperatively to file an amicus curiae brief that voices student opposition to Bush’s stance. The brief includes student experiences in the classroom and how diversity impacts social situations and acknowledges how stigma at the workplace could be ameliorated by such classroom experiences.
“I think Asian Americans are in a unique position,” Kamdang said. “It’s important not to be used as a wedge group and to acknowledge the intersection of other minorities. We have a history of being discriminated against and we’re tempted to forget these things. It’s an opportunity for Asians to find contours of who we are in society.”
Frank Wu, visiting professor at the University of Michigan and witness in the Grutter case two years ago, argues that the University of Michigan does not offer preferential treatment only to Hispanics and blacks, but offers similar treatment for whites and APAs of disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. He cites that alumni preferential treatment, which President Bush has been a recipient of, is still intact, giving advantages to students whose parents are alumni at many elite or competitive schools.
“[Preference for alumni students] is not designed to remedy anything,” he said. “Affirmative action is meant to remedy a problem with racial discrimination. The irony is that the people who get alumni preferences are exactly the people who don’t need them.”
He adds, “No one marches, no one sues, protests, no blood pressure rises. No one says anything when VIPs are admitted.”
Still, Bush contends that the percentage plan used in California, Texas and Florida is a more equitable means to achieve diversity without awarding students admission based on race. Although the president claims that skimming the top 4 to 20 percent of the student body creates diversity without being preferential, opponents claim that this only works if high schools are deeply segregated and makes no impact on graduate or professional schools.
Said Wu: “You can’t have institutions that are all white or all white and Asian American. It’s not enough to say there’s a lot of Asian Americans on campus. It just adds racial tensions. I think increasing racial diversity presents a challenge but we will succeed if we recognize that institutions have to be open.”
Reach Ji Hyun Lim at jlim@asianweek.com.
|
