>
>do you believe the decision will be appealed?
Yes.
any thoughts about how it
>will fare if it is appealed?
It's not slam dunk, but I believe that it may be reversed. The Courts of Appeals, even traditionally "liberal" ones, have been running stringly against affirmative action based on a guess that the S.Ct. will not sustain it. I believe that it shouls, based on its own precedent, see my comment in the Ohio State Law Journal 1997, "A Not Quite Color-Blind Constitution," available on the net if you google it, but I think that the Court is fairly lawless and political, and will do what it likes. As usual in these matters, itdepends onO'Connor and Kennedy. The line up is: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, reverse; Ginsberg, Souter,Breyer, Stevens, affirm, Kennedy, probably reverse, O'Connor, who can guess.
jks
>
>thanks, R
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Luke Weiger
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 4:56 PM
> Subject: Fw: Today's Law School Ruling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B. Joseph White" <bjosephwhite at umich.edu>
>
> Today, we have learned that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found
>in
> our favor in the Grutter case and determined our Law School admissions
> policy to be constitutional. A majority of the court said our
>admissions
> program meets the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the
>Bakke
> decision. The full decision can be found on the web at
> http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/newopn.pl?puid= or at
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02a
> 0170p.
>
> This is a great day for the University of Michigan and for all of higher
> education, as well as for the numerous corporations, educational groups,
>and
> others who filed amicus briefs in support of the University. I am
>pleased
> that the court recognized that diversity brings educational benefits to
>all
> students. This is part of the University's historic and significant
> commitment to diversity in all its facets, and today's decision
>reaffirms
> our community's long-standing values. We must prepare our students to
>learn
> and to lead in the world's most diverse democracy.
>
> The court noted that our Law School admissions policy, adopted by the
> faculty in 1992, is "virtually indistinguishable" from the Harvard plan
>held
> out as a model in the Bakke decision. The court found that our policy
> considers each applicant as an individual in making admissions
>decisions,
> and does not shield any applicant from competing with the rest of the
> applicant pool. "The record demonstrates that the Law School does not
> employ a quota for underrepresented minority students," the majority
>opinion
> stated. "Essentially, both the Law School's admission policy and the
> Harvard plan attend to the numbers of underrepresented minority students
>to
> ensure that all students---minority and majority alike---will be able to
> enjoy the benefits of an academically diverse student body."
>
> The case challenging our undergraduate admissions policy (Gratz v.
> Bollinger) has not yet been decided by the appeals court. As you may
> recall, the district court previously upheld our undergraduate
>admissions
> program.
>
> I am sure these court decisions will generate many questions within our
> community. Once decisions have been rendered in both cases, we will be
> working to plan a public forum where experts will be available to
>provide
> analysis of the cases and respond to questions about their impact.
>Please
> watch the University's web site at
>http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/
> for details about this event.
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx