[The following news release was issued by the American Council on Education. NASFAA is one of the 54 associations that endorsed the briefs.]
The American Council on Education (ACE) on February 14 submitted on behalf of 54 national higher education associations
amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases Gratz v. Bollinger
and Grutter v. Bollinger, which address race- and ethnicity-conscious
undergraduate and law school admissions at the University of Michigan.
Before being appealed to the Supreme Court, a divided 6th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admissions
practices in May, allowing that the Constitution can be read to support
colleges and graduate schools that are seeking "a meaningful number" of
minority students-so long as the school avoids a fixed quota system. ACE
also submitted briefs at the trial court and circuit court of appeals phases
of these cases.
The ACE Supreme Court briefs argue that the University of Michigan should be
allowed to devise their own admissions policies on several grounds:
- the preeminence of American higher education is a
result of a long tradition of government non-interference;
- that leaders of every type of college and university hold
student diversity to be educationally valuable, and that there is ample
evidence for that belief; and
- that the government has a compelling interest in the quality
of higher education, and by extension, diversity, and therefore should not
bar the pursuit of racial and ethnic student diversity in higher education.
"American higher education is considered the best in the world because of
our long-standing tradition of government deference to an institution's
judgment on academic questions, such as what combination of students yields
the best educational outcomes," said ACE President David Ward. "The freedom
to pursue diversity is especially worthy of protection because diversity
benefits all students."
Many observers believe these two cases will generate a record number of
amicus briefs for an oral argument before the high court.
"Most everyone in the higher education community has been very supportive of
the University of Michigan, and the number of amicus briefs filed in these
cases has been overwhelming," said Sheldon E. Steinbach, vice president and
general counsel at ACE. "We feel very strongly that each institution should
be able to decide for itself what the best path to diversity is, and then to
take that path without interference. The outcome of this case will tell
colleges and universities if they will be able to continue to make these
decisions individually, or whether restrictions and guidelines will be
imposed from the outside."
The Bush administration filed two amicus briefs with the high court on Jan.
16 in support of the plaintiffs in the cases, calling the extra
application points awarded to minority and underrepresented candidates at
the University of Michigan equivalent to racial quotas and "plainly
unconstitutional." While allowing that diversity "is an important and
entirely legitimate government objective," the briefs held up as examples
the so-called race-neutral policies of Texas, Florida and California as
proof that traditional race-based affirmative action is not the only way to
achieve diversity. The briefs said that the University of Michigan had not
availed itself of any other means to move toward a more diverse campus.
The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for April 1, and will mark the first
time that the high court has considered this issue directly since University
of California Regents v. Bakke in 1978. A decision is expected in June.
Posted February 18, 2003 on www.NASFAA.org, the Web Site of the
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA).
Please submit Web Site questions or comments to web@nasfaa.org
