Forum outlines history

Four-day affirmative action symposium starts with legal, social history

"Affirmative Action 101: Understanding the Controversy" began how most introductory college courses do - with an overview and historical analysis of the emotional debate.

The first event in a four-day symposium specifically organized to educate students and members of the community on the controversy surrounding the affirmative action lawsuit drew more than 200 people last night. The symposium is sponsored by the Michigan Student Assembly's Women's Issues and Minority Affairs commissions and various other student organizations.

LSA senior Malin Bergner said she attended the discussion to educate herself about the history of affirmative action.

MICHELLE McCOMBS/Daily

"Since affirmative action is a big issue on campus right now, if I'm in a discussion, I want to be able to have a solid ground and argue for my position," Bergner said. "I want to learn more of the University of Michigan's history of affirmative action, and I want other people to get educated on this issue so they can make rational decisions and choices."

Law Prof. Terrance Sandalow began the two-hour panel discussion with a brief summary of the constitutional background of affirmative action. Sandalow led attendees through a 100-year history of affirmative action.

"The Plessy vs. Ferguson case of 1896 established that 'separate but equal' was OK," Sandalow said. "Basically, the government was saying that as long as everyone was equal, segregation was constitutionally permissible. This was then overturned in 1954 by the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling."

Sandalow continued in a timeline fashion, explaining the changes that came with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"Very, very briefly put, Title VI stated that no person shall be denied participation in a federally funded activity on the basis of race," Sandalow said. "This would include the University, because it is, of course, federally funded."

Sandalow described how various laws and judicial decisions have affected affirmative action and the present-day debate. He explained the significance of Bakke vs. the University of California Medical School at Davis in refining guidelines for affirmative action policies. Many institutions have looked to this case in forming their admissions policies, he said.

SNRE Prof. Bunyan Bryant said he believes that affirmative action is an important policy for the University to uphold.

"Affirmative action is a plan to have every area of the University to reflect the diversity of the world," Bryant said. "We need affirmative action to deconstruct race, to deconstruct institutional racism, to enrich the University in both the classroom and extracurricular activities."

RC Prof. Carl Cohen, a long-time opponent of affirmative action, said that despite "honorable motives" of affirmative action, it is constitutionally impermissible to include "preference by race" in admissions standards.

"If the purpose of affirmative action is to balance the races, that is constitutionally wrong," Cohen said. "The University does not have the authority to compensate the wrongs of society. It is our legal and moral duty to cleanse ourselves of racial discrimination."

Steve Waterbrook, an officer of the campus chapter of the College Republicans, said the symposium was necessary to inform students about both sides of the debate.

"I myself came to support the anti-affirmative action stance," said Waterbrook, an LSA sophomore. "But tonight's panel hopefully showed that it is important to hear both sides, because education is really the key."

DANIEL CASTLE/Daily Law Prof. Terrance Sandalow last night and SNRE Prof. Bunyan Bryant participate in a roundtable discussion about affirmative action in Angell Hall.

11-18-97