U-M attorneys
say 6th Circuit Court of Appeals got it
right
By Laurel Thomas Gnagey
The University will ask the Supreme
Court not to hear the Law School affirmative
action case when the U-M legal team files
a brief next month, attorney Maureen Mahoney
said during a forum to update the campus
on two admissions lawsuits.
U-M Attorneys Maureen
Mahoney and John Payton participate
in the Sept. 19 forum to update the
campus community on admissions lawsuits.
(Photo by Marcia Ledford, U-M
Photo Services)
Mahoney, a partner with Latham &
Watkins, Washington D.C., and the newest
member of the University’s legal
team, was one of nine panelists speaking
before an audience of approximately 300
people in the Mendelssohn Theatre Sept.
18.
“The Law School has won the case,
and it’s just not going to get any
better than that,” Mahoney said.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in May
ruled in favor of U-M’s affirmative
action policy in admissions to the Law
School (Grutter v. Bollinger, et. al),
reversing a lower court ruling and upholding
the University’s position that it
has a compelling interest in achieving
a diverse student body. The court acknowledged
the educational value of diversity.
The 6th Circuit opinion said the admissions
policy at the Law School complies with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke
decision, which permits race to be taken
into consideration in admissions as long
as quotas are not used.
A 6th Circuit Court ruling is yet to
be issued on a second case involving undergraduate
admissions process in LS&A (Gratz
v. Bollinger et. al), but the University
won that case in the lower court, which
Mahoney said is another reason not to
seek a Supreme Court ruling.
“From our perspective, the Supreme
Court already decided it 24 years ago
in Bakke, and it doesn’t need to
weigh in again at this point,” Mahoney
said. The U-M legal team argues that the
Supreme Court need not hear a case that
has been settled at the circuit court
level. Out of 13 circuit courts, three
have heard similar cases and only one,
in Texas, struck down a university’s
affirmative action policies.
The University’s decision to oppose
certiorari, or the hearing of the case
by the Supreme Court as petitioned by
the plaintiffs, is contrary to the desires
of the Student Intervenors, a group that
joined the University’s lawsuits
as representatives of the student body.
“This is an issue … of great
national importance,” said Miranda
Massie, an attorney representing students
in the Law School case. “ We think
that even though there was a victory at
the 6th Circuit, we cannot come out against
the Supreme Court hearing this appeal,”
she said.
In addition to Mahoney and Massie, the
forum to update the campus community on
the lawsuits included panelists: Paul
N. Courant, interim provost and executive
vice president for academic affairs; Jeffrey
S. Lehman, Law School dean; Monique Luse,
president of the student government in
LS&A; Geraldine Bledsoe Ford, past
president of the U-M Alumni Association
and retired justice of the Wayne County
Circuit Court; John Payton, attorney with
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and a member
of the U-M legal team; and Ted Shaw, associate
director and counsel for the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund and attorney for the intervenors
in Gratz v. Bollinger. U-M Vice President
and General Counsel Marvin Krislov was
the moderator for the panel.
President Mary Sue Coleman gave opening
remarks. She told the audience, “One
advantage to being a newcomer is I can
tell you firsthand that the whole nation
is at stake.” The text of her remarks
can be found on the University’s
admissions lawsuit Web site: http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/comments/.
Panelists addressed the educational value
of diversity and updated participants
on developments that occurred over the
summer break. Interim Provost Paul Courant
cited some of the University’s research
that proved diversity is good for education.
“The variety of points of view,
academic and life experiences that diverse
populations afford, allow all of us to
see problems from different angles, which
is crucial to the educational process,”
Courant said.
Monique Luse, president of the LS&A
student government, political action chair
of the Black Student Union and co-founder
of Students Supporting Affirmative Action,
speculated on what would happen if affirmative
action were declared unconstitutional.
“The decision would mean that the
welcome mat at the door of higher education—not
only at the University of Michigan but
in the nation—would be pulled out
from under us,” she said. “The
loss would not just be in numbers [of
minority students] but in idealism.”
A brief question and answer session followed
the more formal presentation.