University responds to lawsuit intervention motion

The University has issued a response to the coalition of students which filed a motion to intervene as a third party in the lawsuit challenging the University Law School's use of race in its admission policies.

A total of 41 students ranging in gender, race and educational level along with three coalitions filed the motion on March 26 to enter the second of two lawsuits against the University.

The first lawsuit challenges the right of the University to use race as a factor in the College of Liberal Arts and Science's admission practices.

The University's response stated the defendants recognize that the prospect of a third party in either court case "could significantly complicate discovery and possibly other aspects of these cases."

Detroit attorney Miranda Massie, who is leading the group's legal action, said the University's response concerns "us that it could be taken that we ought to be cutting corners in this case, and in this case it's too important to do that."

Massie summarized the University's response as supportive, but she added that the mentioning of possible obstacles resulting from a third party is insignificant in such an important lawsuit.

"The stuff about the complication is quite unnecessary - it's absolutely beside the point," Massie said.

Massie said allowing the group in the lawsuit will expand the scope of the case. She added that, in court, the University will have to consider many variables and may not be able to focus on the group's interests.

"If your interests are different then you can't assume the University will adequately represent your interests," Massie said. "This is not going to be a run-of-the-mill rubber-stamp case."

The group, if allowed in the lawsuit, plans to raise concerns, including sexism and equality, Massie said.

The Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit against the University Law School on Dec. 3 on behalf of Barbara Gutter, a white applicant who asserts she was unfairly evaluated in the University's Law School's admission process since race was used as a factor in the selection of the incoming class of 1995.

The coalition is filing for two different types of intervention - intervention as of right and permissive intervention. If the group can prove it has a legal interest in the lawsuit and its concerns will not be represented adequately by the University, it will be allowed in the lawsuit under the guidelines of intervention, as of right. In permissive intervention the decision is more discretionary and up to the judge.

CIR attorney Terry Pell said the group which is seeking to intervene in the case does not have a legal interest but a "policy interest" in taking part in the lawsuit. Pell said the University alone can adequately address the students' concerns and the University's interests in court.

"We filed a motion opposing the motion to intervene," Pell explained.

Only if the policy of affirmative action was required and not voluntarily implemented at the University could the intervention be argued, Pell said. He added that the coalition may benefit from the policies but "they have no protected legal interests at stake in this case."

Pell said the decision to allow intervention is ultimately left up to Judge Bernard Friedman, who is presiding over the case.

LSA senior Jessica Curtin, one of the students trying to intervene, said the group's commitment as defendants in the lawsuit is based on the grounds that the case cannot be adequately represented by the University.

"Our involvement will make it a much stronger case," Curtin said. "We have a much deeper interest since we are going to be affected by these policies."

Associate Vice President for University Relations Lisa Baker declined to comment further, saying the University's response speaks for itself.

05-11-98