Bush criticized over handling of affirmative action

Administration should help schools interpret Supreme Court ruling, civil rights group says

Tuesday, December 9, 2003

BY SARAH KELLOGG
Ann Arbor News Bureau

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is shirking its duty to help schools interpret and implement the U.S. Supreme Court's nearly six-month-old affirmative action decision, a report released today charges.

  From Our Advertiser

  
    
The Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington-based civil rights group, is calling on the U.S. Department of Justice to offer guidance to colleges and universities, K-12 public schools and military schools to ensure their affirmative action policies reflect the court's June decision.

"The attorney general and other federal officials have an obligation to uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court," said William Taylor, the commission's chairman. "Instead the administration is allowing the opposition to affirmative action of its conservative base to trump its constitutional obligations."

University officials say they aren't interested in having the Bush administration, which has been unfriendly toward affirmative action, interpret the court's ruling. The Bush administration's top litigator, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, criticized U-M's admissions policies during oral arguments before the court last spring.

The court upheld the University of Michigan's law school admissions policy, which allowed race to be one of many factors that admissions committees could consider in accepting an applicant.

But the court set limits on how far schools could go in seeking diversity. At the same time, the court also struck down U-M's point-based undergraduate admissions policy, which allocated points to applicants based on race, geography and test scores.

Taylor said Bush administration officials should set aside their personal views on affirmative action and adopt a policy based on the principles established by the court - that race can be considered in certain cases.

"Here we have an administration which stands for a policy that is opposite to what the Supreme Court upheld," said Taylor, noting that the president and Attorney General John Ashcroft have been outspoken in their opposition to affirmative action. "I think in fairness the administration needs to give an interpretation, some moral and legal guidance."

Since the court's decision, higher education groups have held a series of regional seminars and developed a paper providing guidance as to what the Michigan cases meant for colleges and universities, said Sheldon Steinbach, vice president and general counsel for the American Council on Education, which represents the nation's 3,500 public universities.

"The position adopted by the administration was contrary to that adopted by the Supreme Court and as such, no one expected or desired the administration's advice as to how to deal with admissions or other issues related to the Michigan decision," Steinbach said.

It's not unprecedented for the Justice Department to issue guidelines, Taylor noted. It did so for colleges and universities on admissions practices after the court allowed some consideration of race in admissions in its 1978 Bakke decision. After the court limited racial preferences in federal procurement activities in the 1995 Adarand case, the Justice Department issued policy guidelines for federal agencies.

A spokesman for the Justice Department would not comment on the report.

The Center for Individual Rights, which directed and funded the lawsuits against U-M's admissions policies, called the report misguided.

"What is underlying all this is that the commission is really calling for the administration to come out and give a hearty endorsement to virtually all racial preferences," said Curt Levey, a CIR spokesman. "The Justice Department has every right to oppose racial preferences and do so consistent with the law."

U-M declined to comment on the report.