|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Another Ruling in Affirmative Action Case
A federal appeals court panel ruled in August that the admissions policy of the University of Georgia, which used race as a factor in evaluating some applicants, was unconstitutional. In Johnson v. Board of Regents, white female applicants denied admission to the university sued. A federal district court ruled last year that a diverse student body was not a compelling state interest and did not foster educational benefits. In the current appellate ruling, however, the judges found the admissions policy unconstitutional for a different reason. The court concluded that, even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest, the admissions policy was not tailored narrowly enough to meet the interests of diversity and that instead it "mechanically award[ed] an arbitrary ‘diversity bonus’ to nonwhite applicants."
The Georgia decision falls in between other rulings on affirmative action. In cases in Texas and Michigan, courts have held that diversity is not a compelling state interest. But in another Michigan case and in a case in Washington State, courts have ruled that educational diversity is a sufficiently compelling interest to justify affirmative action programs. Observers agree that the issue must eventually be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under Georgia’s admissions policy, about 85 percent of each first-year class was admitted on the basis of academic qualifications alone. The remaining borderline applicants received extra points for factors such as being a member of a minority group or the child of alumni, being involved in extracurricular activities, or coming from a disadvantaged economic back-ground. In the year in which the plaintiffs in Johnson v. Board of Regents applied, extra points were also awarded to males. The university will not appeal the decision and has adopted a new admissions policy that relies almost exclusively on quantitative academic measures.
The AAUP, along with other higher education associations, has signed friend-of-the-court briefs focusing on the educational benefits of racial diversity. "This case is troubling in that it purports not to address the issue of diversity as a compelling interest, and yet it significantly limits the means of achieving diversity," says AAUP associate counsel Ann Springer. "Diversity is essential to a well-rounded education, and the freedom to create a diverse learning environment on cam-pus is an essential part of academic freedom for faculty and institutions."
For more about this issue, see "Confusion Surrounds Affirmative Action" on pages 15–16 of the July–August 2001 issue of Academe, or visit the Legal Issues section of the AAUP Web site.
|