More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the University of Michigan over affirmative action, some university administrators remain uncertain about admitting students partially based on race quotas due to confusion around the ruling.
AU denies that race is a major factor that determines admission. "Admissions does not operate on a quota system for multicultural students, or other students for that matter," said Sarah Alston, AU director of admissions. "Race is among these factors, but our ultimate concern is with a student's fit for AU and his or her ability to be a successful student here."
In July 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan's use of giving minority students an extra 20 points on its 150-point admittance system was illegal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In the same case, the court ruled that consideration of race as a factor for admission into the university's law school was legal. The effect was confusion over what the specifics of the ruling meant, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported Jan. 14.
The Chronicle found that out of 29 schools it surveyed, seven had drops in the number of both black and Hispanic freshmen enrolled, and 11 had decreases in one category or the other since 2002. The University of California at Berkeley had a 23 percent decrease in the number of black freshmen and a 15.2 percent decrease in the number of Hispanic freshmen enrolled.
The University of Michigan, the subject of the Supreme Court's rulings, found a 21 percent decrease in black freshmen and a 13.4 percent decrease in Hispanic freshmen enrollment since 2002. However, 11 of the 29 universities saw increases in both black and Hispanic freshmen, including Clemson, Harvard and the University of Maryland.
AU's admissions process is similar to the system at Michigan's law school.
"The Admissions Committee also looks at other personal factors in a student's application: first-generation college student, legacy, geographic diversity, obstacles the student has overcome, etc.," Alston said.
Colleges and universities across the country are scrambling to make sense of and abide by the rulings, The Chronicle reported. Overall, the reaction to the rulings has been cautious.
"The bottom line of the court's decisions - that courts can consider race as long as they consider each applicant individually - got lost in the resulting discourse over race relations," wrote Jeffery Selingo, the author of the article.
Many universities, including Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern and Princeton, have opened up racially exclusive programs to all students. This makes it more difficult for other institutions to claim it necessary to keep their racially exclusive programs.
The Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education began to pressure the University of Wisconsin in late November to open up minority-only scholarships to all students, regardless of race or ethnicity. Similar investigations have been occurring at places of higher education across the country.
The National Association of Scholars sent out Freedom of Information Act requests to dozens of state universities to determine if their admittance processes use racial preferences and, if they do, whether they are legal.
"The mixed enrollment picture may indicate that it is too early to determine the long-term effects of the Michigan decision," said David Ward, president of the American Council on Education. "One- or two-year blips are regrettable, but not permanent. I do think, if over the next two or three years we see an aggregate decline, we will respond. It will come to the forefront again"
