It didn’t. Gratz, who is white, was turned down, while, she says, minorities with the same or lesser credentials were admitted. In October she and another rejected white student, Patrick Hamacher, filed a federal discrimination suit against the University of Michigan–and immediately became avatars of the latest assault on affirmative action. To Gratz, now a junior at the University of Michigan’s Dearborn campus, the admissions policy unconstitutionally discriminates on race. To prove that point, her lawyers say they have uncovered confidential documents that they claim explicitly spell out Michigan’s dual admission policy. As Gratz put it, ““They are using race as a factor in admissions by weeding out students that aren’t of that minority race.''
Their suit is destined to enter America’s conscience next year as the republic continues its ““national conversation’’ on race. Since June, President Clinton’s racial advisory board, chaired by John Hope Franklin, has been charged with taking the dialogue forward. Polls show that Americans are as ambivalent as ever about affirmative action. Most people tend to favor the idea of racial diversity in the workplace and on campus yet don’t especially like giving preferences to minorities. Instead, Americans favor special programs for poor people, of whatever race.
The Michigan suit will starkly capture this debate. And its potential consequences are huge –the future racial makeup at many of America’s campuses. At stake is whether colleges can legally take race into account in selecting students for admissions. Since at least 1978, when the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Bakke decision, many universities have routinely used preference policies to increase the number of minority students. The Bakke ruling said colleges couldn’t use quotas for minorities but could use race as a ““plus’’ factor in admissions. Michigan saw its black and Hispanic enrollment nearly double to 13 percent after it strengthened its recruiting programs a decade ago. Educators now fear that campuses will resegregate if their preference policies are outlawed. That, says Walter Harrison, a Michigan vice president, ““would be a crime of the first order.''
The legal process is just beginning; it will take years for it even to approach the Supreme Court. But supporters of affirmative action are understandably nervous about the Michigan case. Federal courts haven’t looked kindly on these policies in recent years. A federal appeals court last year struck down affirmative action at the University of Texas, saying diversity wasn’t a good enough reason to favor minorities. The Supreme Court, itself unfriendly to preferences, let the decision stand. In November, civil-rights groups read the tea leaves and helped pay to settle a reverse-discrimination suit in Piscataway, N.J.
The Michigan suit attacks something near and dear to the aspirations of many middle-class families–the policies of a large, highly selective university. It was brought by the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington-based conservative public-interest legal group that represented Cheryl Hopwood in the Texas case and defended California’s Proposition 209, which banned all racial preferences in public-sector hiring and contracting. Conservatives are relishing the Michigan suit in part because of the secret documents. Carl Cohen, a Michigan philosophy professor, got them only after filing a Freedom of Information request. Gratz and Hamacher eventually were selected by CIR as plaintiffs.
On their face the documents advise admissions counselors to use different cutoff points in weighing the admission of whites and minorities. The charts display intersecting grids of standardized-test scores and high-school grade-point averages. One row is for white applicants and another for minorities. For example, a white student with a 3.7 grade point (out of 4.0) and an SAT of 1,250 (out of 1,600) would be put on a waiting list, while a minority student would be admitted. ““This plan involves the naked use of race just for the sake of a certain racial mix,’’ said Terence Pell, a lawyer for the Center for Individual Rights.
University officials acknowledge–proudly–that they use race in the admissions process. But they insist it’s only one ingredient in a mix of factors, like where a student lives and athletic ability. And they say the grids are only guidelines for counselors in selecting the 5,300 students out of the roughly 19,000 applications. ““Race is a factor, but it’s not the most important factor and by itself it won’t get you into the university,’’ says Harrison. Michigan’s predicament is that minorities generally score lower in college-entrance exams. So if the university wants to have a diverse student body–and remain selective–it says it employs race. ““These grids are simply the manifestation of what is in the minds of every admissions officer in the country,’’ says Michigan president Lee Bollinger.
Would a ban on affirmative action return America’s colleges to mostly white bastions? Early results in Texas and California, where preferences were outlawed, isn’t encouraging for diversity. At the University of California’s three law schools, the number of black students admitted for this year plunged 72 percent, to 59. Only 16 of them decided to attend, compared with 43 last year. And at UC-Berkeley’s Boalt Hall, the first-year class has only one black student. In Texas, the picture is similar, especially at its more selective universities. The University of Texas law school enrolled only four new black students versus 29 last year. Educators are looking for other ways to attract minorities, such as a new law that makes students finishing in the top 10 percent of their high school eligible for admission to a state college. But no one is especially optimistic that any of this will work magic. ““People are fooling themselves if they think there are easy alternatives,’’ says Bollinger. On this topic, there never is.
Whites and minorities with similar qualifications applying to the University of Michigan for ‘96-‘97 were evaluated on different scales. A sample of outcomes:
Student record Whites Minorities GPA:* 4.0 and up ACT: 0-17 Usually Usually SAT: 400-840 rejected rejected G{A” 3/6-3.7 ACT: 27-28 Deferred Accepted SAT: 1,200-1,270 GPA: 3.4-3.5 ACT: 31-33 Accepted Accepted SAT: 1,360-1,490 GPA: 3.0-3.1 ACT: 18-19 Rejected Usually SAT: 850-920 accepted *ADJUSTED AVERAGE SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
