IU School of Law awaits UM appeal

A recent University of Michigan appellate court victory has left the courts split on the issue of considering race in college admissions. IU admissions officials are paying close attention to the case as they await a probable appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.\nLast month, in a narrow 5-4 decision, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that UM's law school may consider race in admissions, overturning a March 2001 federal district court ruling that disallowed the practice. \n"I think everyone in admissions will be watching it closely because it's going to control how we do our business," said Kevin R. Robling, assistant dean of admissions for the IU School of Law. \nRobling said while race is considered when selecting an applicant, it is not the primary consideration. He cited the 1978 University of California Regents v. Bakke case as legal precedent for IU's race-conscious admission policy. \n"IU follows the Supreme Court decision in Bakke," said Robling. "Basically it says that race can be taken into consideration in admissions as one factor amongst many when determining the quality of an applicant. It cannot be a decisive factor; we do not give additional points to someone based on race. It is just one factor that we consider amongst many others." \nSince the case was originally filed in 1997, UM has argued that increased diversity has educational benefits for all students. The appellate court agreed, stating in its opinion that "the law school has a compelling state interest in achieving diversity."\n"Diversity in law school may be more important than in engineering school," said Robling, reaffirming the Court's opinion. \n"There may be only one way to build a bridge but the law is extremely subjective; it applies to all people. It's important to have a class of diverse students."\nHowever, some view the consideration of race as a discriminatory practice that provides an unfair competitive advantage to some applicants. The 6th Circuit Court's dissent described the consideration of race as "a straightforward instance of racial discrimination" and found UM's efforts to attain a critical mass of minority students to be indistinguishable from numerical quota systems. \nSenior Jor Ming Goh, a telecommunications major, said that an admissions policy should strive for objectivity. \n"I think that admissions should be based on performance instead of race," Goh said. \nHe added that using race to differentiate two equally qualified candidates is "a clear-cut case of racial discrimination." \nDespite the strong dissent, the majority of the judges found the practice does not shield applicants from competition and UM does not reserve seats for minorities. Robling insisted that the IU Law School's admission policy is not anti-competitive. \n"It's not a trump card that's going to get you in the door," explained Robling. "It's not the only factor we consider." \nU.S. Congresswomen Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) likened race-conscious admissions policies to affirmative action. In a recent press release, she intimated the consideration of race and ethnicity in law school admissions may increase the number of minorities in the legal profession. \n"The lack of diversity is evident in the legal profession and confirms the continued need for affirmative action in law school admissions," Johnson said. "It is only fair to say that if the need for affirmative action were outdated there would be equal representation of racial minorities and women in the profession of law. Unfortunately, such diversity and inclusion has yet to be achieved."\nAn August 2001 American Bar Association (ABA) survey revealed that minorities, which comprise nearly 30 percent of the total population, accounted for only slightly over 8 percent of the ABA lawyers.\nRobling, however, says that the IU Law School's admissions policy should not be interpreted as affirmative action. \n"This is not meant to be a quota system," Robling said. "It's not meant to be an affirmative action program and it's not meant to right past evils." \n"I don't believe Michigan argued that it was any of those things. They were simply saying 'We have a better classroom environment if we have varying points of view coming from minority students and other areas of diversity,'" he said.\nIU professor of law, Daniel O. Conkle, said UM would have likely lost the case had the university argued solely on the grounds of affirmative action. \n"Recent Supreme Court cases have imposed extremely rigid evidentiary requirements in which the University of Michigan would have to provide clear evidence that the university had been engaged in clearly identified past discrimination of minorities," Conkle said. \nRobling said that, as of May 28, the law school had offered seats to 794 of the 2,453 applicants. Minorities will comprise 18 percent of IU's graduating class of 2005.