z47\doc\web\2000\12\umich.txt


The NAS filed an amicus brief on the part of the student in the
MIchigan suit (available at our website, www.nas.org, and issued this
press release after the recent verdict, which said that previous
affirmative action policy at the school had been unconstitutional,
but present policy of adding 20 points out of a possible 150 to the
application score for a minority, is constitutional.  




PRESS RELEASE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS For Immediate Release


Statement on Decision in University of Michigan Admissions Case




December 15, 2000


Princeton, NJ This week, a U. S. District Court ruled that from 1995
to 1998, the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions
program unconstitutionally discriminated against student applicants
on the basis of their race (Gratz v. Bollinger).  The court also
ruled that the system of racial preferences used by the University of
Michigan since 1999 does not violate the federal Constitution.  The
National Association of Scholars was the only higher education
association to support those applicants whose race was held against
them in the admissions process.
 
We are very pleased that the court recognized that the 1995-98
selection system violated the constitutional right of student
applicants to the equal protection of the law.  We are deeply
disappointed, however, in the court’s decision to legitimize the
current Michigan admissions process.  That process awards 20 points
out of a possible 150 points to designated minority applicants simply
because of their race or ethnicity.  That this discriminates against
non-minority applicants because of their race is as plain as day.


The court attempts to justify Michigan’s discriminatory policy by
accepting the university’s assertions that racial diversity has
educational benefits so significant as to support racial preferences
aimed at maintaining a racially diverse student body.  As our amicus
brief demonstrated, however, there is no credible evidence that
racial diversity is responsible for the educational benefits sought
by the university.  Furthermore, we do not believe that treating
individuals unequally because of their racial or ethnic
characteristics is any way for a university to show its respect for

the merits of each individual.


There are sound legal grounds for optimism that the court’s judgment
with respect to the current discriminatory admissions policy at
Michigan will be reversed on appeal.  The university itself insists
that there is no substantial difference between its new and its old
policies.  In the meantime, the University of Michigan is free to
continue its policy of valuing some students more than others because
of the color of their skin.  This is most unfortunate for the
integrity of American higher education.
 
The NAS’s briefs in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger (law
school admissions case) can be found at www.nas.org/new.html.


Contact: 
Bradford P. Wilson
Executive Director
National Association of Scholars
221 Witherspoon Street, 2nd floor
Princeton, NJ 08542
(609)683-7878
Wilson@dir.nas.org 
eGroups Sponsor