High court takes bite out of Civil Rights Act

By Marcelle Richards and Kiyoshi
Tomono
Daily Bruin Senior Staff

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Tuesday in a 5-4 ruling that may protect the University of
California from indirect discrimination lawsuits based on race,
color or national origin.

The court’s decision stemmed from a class-action lawsuit
in Alabama that involved the state’s administration of
drivers license tests exclusively in English. The ruling held that
private parties may sue due to direct discrimination based on race,
color or national origin, but conditions which may put minorities
indirectly at a disadvantage would not be considered
discrimination.

Those familiar with the ruling, however, said the case could
have more widespread effects.

“It will make it more difficult for students to advocate
for change when faced with policies that have unjustified
discrimination,” said Richard Cohen, attorney for Southern
Poverty Law Center. “The universities will know the students
may not be able to sue them, and instead the students will be
confined to filing complaints with agencies.”

Conservative attorneys involved in the case believe the ruling
is a much-needed deterrent to university lawsuits.

“The fact that 75 percent of the basketball team is
African American, someone could say it’s
discrimination,” said Joseph Schmitz, the attorney for
Washington Legal Foundation, et al. “You could come up with
these arguments and lawsuits that are totally frivolous.”

Students were formerly protected under Title VI, the part of the
Civil Rights Act which guards against discrimination based on race,
color or national origin. Under the ruling, agencies like the UC
system can still be sued if they intentionally discriminate based
on race, sex or color.

But lawsuits claiming that agencies create programs that
discriminate against particular minority groups will no longer be
valid.

“This decision could potentially create a situation where
discrimination exists and there will be no recourse,” said
Debbie Davis, chair of the UC Student Association.
“What’s the likelihood that the government will become
aware of a particular case of discrimination?”

Despite the potential for the ruling to have sweeping
implications, University Counsel Christopher Patti said the effects
will probably be more localized within the UC system.

“(The ruling) will rearrange litigation, but we
don’t think it will affect policy itself,” Patti said.
“There is not a lot out there in terms of disparate impact
lawsuits in admissions, but there are some in other
areas.”

Specifically, Patti said the decision will impact cases that
deal with gender-biased insurance issues and with issues of student
athletes and protection under Title IX.

Title IX, a sister statute to Title VI that prohibits
gender-based discrimination, may be subject to examination under
the same arguments that were used in this case, Cohen said.

Patti said that specific lawsuits and UC admissions policy could
be affected.

The SAT I has been an element of university admissions that has
been criticized for being racially and socio-economically
biased.

“There is a claim that there is a lawsuit pending
regarding the Cal Berkeley admissions process post-209 and its
disparate impacts in Title IV ““ that claim is no longer
viable,” Patti said. “But I think there is a lot of
discussion going on about the SATs and the admissions process
that’s going to be driven more by policy concerns than
litigation.”

Many students feel the seemingly distant scenario in Alabama has
perpetuated the anti-affirmative action trend.

SP-1 and SP-2 are 1995 regents’ policies that eliminated
the use of race and gender in UC admissions and hiring.

Proposition 209 terminated affirmative action at the statewide
level.

“It’s a really bad time to be a minority in the
states right now,” said Nisha Vyas, a first-year law student.
“It’s horrible ““ it’s a really unfortunate
ruling.”

First-year law student Michelle Carey said racism in everyday
life, as evidenced by low minority enrollment at the law school,
will only escalate with the court’s ruling.

“It seems like now, more than ever, it’s time for
the regents to step up and rescind SP-1 and SP-2,” she
said.

With reports from Shauna Mecartea, Daily Bruin Contributor.