The University of North Carolina law school is entering the nationwide fray surrounding the University of Michigan's affirmative action admissions policy, the largest national debate of such race-based policies in a quarter century.
The Chapel Hill law school is filing an amicus brief with U.S. Supreme Court in support of Michigan's legally embroiled policy.
"The brief will urge the court to uphold the Bakke decision that race is permissible as a factor in admissions," said Gene Nichol, dean of the UNC law school at Chapel Hill, adding he believes all race-based affirmative action policies are in jeopardy in the case before the court.
In the 1978 Bakke v. University of California Board of Regents, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can use race as a factor when reviewing applications. The use of race is important in both law school and university admissions in achieving diversity, Nichol said.
The brief also will address the issue of the role of the public law school as "training grounds for community leaders," Nichol said. To properly serve in this capacity, law schools must use race to ensure the student body is "effectively integrated" and representative of the community, he added.
The University of Michigan uses a 150-point "selection index system" in judging applicants. The system awards points to prospective students based on factors like their grade point averages, SAT scores, and, most controversially, their race -- resulting in some critics call "reverse discrimination." Previous Michigan point systems have been struck down in federal court in the mid-1990's.
The Bush administration also sent a brief to the Supreme Court on Thursday night, one day after President George W. Bush vehemently attacked Michigan's policy as a "fundamentally flawed" system.
"At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race," Bush said in his Wednesday announcement.
In the brief, filed by U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the administration describes the policy as unconstitutional and lauds other "race neutral alternatives" in achieving diversity on American college campuses.
"In high-profile cases, interested groups often file briefs," University Law Prof. Kim Forde-Mazrui said.
Forde-Mazrui said he is not surprised by the number of briefs being filed and expects other legal groups to weigh in on the issue as well.
But unless enough briefs are submitted to force justices to reconsider long held opinions or bring to light new arguments, he says those "briefs filed by Bush and other groups are unlikely to play a critical role."
"Briefs by the parties are the most important," Forde-Mazrui said. "They have the greatest persuasive value, but even they have a limited effect since most justices already have an established view on affirmative action."
Depending on how broadly the justices apply their decision, the Supreme Court ruling might have implications for other universities and colleges, Forde-Mazrui said.
Because of the court's tendency to have narrowly defined decisions, Michigan might only be required to revise its policy.
But if the decision handed down is more sweeping, schools across the country could be forced to abandon all race-based affirmative action policies.
It also could result in more litigation by previously denied white applicants, he said.
A decision, though, is difficult to predict and might come down to how Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often has been the swing vote on the Rhenquist Court, decides, Forde-Mazrui said.