Court finds Texas admissions policies discriminatory

Thursday, April 4, 1996

Law school’s affirmative action policy judged in violition of
14th AmendmentBy Rachanee Srisavasdi

Daily Bruin Staff

Race preference policies came under more fire last month when a
federal court ruled that race preferences in college admissions
discriminate against Caucasian applicants.

In the case of Hopwood vs. State of Texas, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit Court ruled that the University of
Texas’ law school violated the 14th Amendment by giving admission
preferences to African American, Chicana/o and Latina/o
applicants.

The ruling ­ which reverses a lower-court decision that
supported the affirmative action program at the university ­
will affect all public university admissions in 5th Circuit states,
specifically Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

In a 2-to-1 decision, the panel found the law school failed to
justify the race-based policy.

"The school presents no compelling justification, under the 14th
Amendment or Supreme Court precedent, that allows it to continue to
elevate some races over others, even for the wholesome purpose of
correcting perceived racial imbalance," wrote Judge Jerry Smith in
the majority opinion.

In 1992, the state of Texas was sued by four Caucasian
applicants who had been rejected for admission to the university’s
law school, arguing their grades and test scores were higher than
some African American, Chicana/o and Latina/o students who were
admitted.

The ruling is regarded by some as part of a chain of policy
reversals regarding the use of race as a criterion in college
admission. Last July, the University of California regents
rescinded affirmative action policies in both hiring and
admissions, a decision that brought the debate of affirmative
action to the national forefront.

"The ruling clearly validates the decision of the regents last
July," said Regent Ward Connerly, who spearheaded the UC campaign
against affirmative action. "Diversity is not a compelling reason
to discriminate against people on the basis of their race."

In response to the ruling, the University of Texas decided
unanimously last Tuesday to request that the Texas attorney general
appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court’s decision contradicts previous rulings on race as a
criterion in college admissions. In the 1978 case of the UC Regents
vs. Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 that strict racial
quotas violated civil rights laws, yet some preferential treatment
to promote diversity could be justified.

Though the Bakke ruling eliminated quotas, it also reaffirmed
support for race policies. Justice Powell of the Bakke ruling said
affirmative action policies in college admissions were beneficial:
"The goal of a diverse student body clearly is a constitutionally
permissible goal for an institution of higher education," Powell
said in the court’s ruling.

Public universities have cited the Bakke case as reasoning
behind using race preferences in admissions for years. Yet,
according to the Texas ruling, Bakke cannot be used anymore by
colleges to explain race preferences in admissions.

"We are saddened by the 5th Circuit’s sweeping determination
that Bakke is no longer the law of the land and that past racial
discrimination and diversity no longer justify affirmative action
in admissions," said William Cunningham, chancellor of the
University of Texas, in a recent statement.

Others argued that public universities have misinterpreted the
Bakke ruling, and used racial discrimination as a means to achieve
diversity.

"Universities are so committed to the idea of diversity that
they will grasp at any straw," Connerly said. "Universities have
used (the Bakke ruling) not in the interest of promoting diversity,
but wanting a racial mixture on campus. It is the biggest lie of
the century."

In the 1978 case, Allan Bakke, a Caucasian applicant to UC
Davis’ medical school, filed a suit maintaining that the school’s
admissions program for minorities set a quota discriminating
against him on the basis of his race. Besides chastising Davis for
using a quota system, the resulting ruling also won Bakke admission
into the school.

Yet some think that the 5-to-4 Bakke ruling did not create a
firm precedent for public universities.

"The decision in Bakke didn’t produce a majority opinion," said
Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor. "It is not entirely a clear
ruling … its reasoning has been undermined by recent Supreme
Court decisions."

Indeed, affirmative action policies have not been favored in
past Supreme Court decisions. In three recent cases ­ City of
Richmond vs. Croson, Metro Broadcasting vs. FCC and Adarand vs.
Peña ­ the Court has ruled against race preferences in
construction contracting.

Additionally, a week before the Hopwood ruling, a Louisiana
court ruled that the government has to be colorblind in the area of
construction contracting hiring.

If the University of Texas decides to petition directly to the
Supreme Court, the Court can decide whether or not to hear the case
by late September.

"We feel (the case) is important to higher education throughout
the country," said Patricia Ohlendorf, vice provost of the
University of Texas. "Affirmative action policies provide an
opportunity to minority groups to pursue a college education."