Two groups lead appeals

In two lawsuits challenging the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and the University's Law School's use of race in admissions policies, two groups of students wanting to intervene are appealing decisions to keep them out of the courtroom.

The original intervention motions filed in the cases in district court - the same court that handled the original suits - were denied in July. Since then both parties have filed for appeals with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Lee Felarca, a legal assistant to the lead attorney for the intervening party in the Law School case, said the legal briefs for the appeal were filed yesterday per request of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If denied at the circuit court level, Felarca said intervening parties are prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court.

"It's a matter of democratic right," said Felarca, who is also a member of Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary.

The earlier denial of intervention has ignited opinions about the justice system's ability to remain color blind.

Student interventions in similar cases involving affirmative action in the admissions processes of the University of Washington and the University of Texas were also denied.

Felarca said the court's decision to deny the intervention is "racist," calling the consistent denials of intervention in affirmative action lawsuits "a real pattern of systematic discrimination by the court."

Since Hopwood v. State of Texas, there has been a mini-trend of keeping minority and white students from intervening, said Miranda Massie, an attorney working on the intervention appeal for the case against the Law School.

"Keeping intervenors out was a decision expected by no one," including the Center for Individual Rights, Massie said.

CIR, the law firm filing the lawsuits against the University, filed the Hopwood suit against the University of Texas Law School that ended with the abolition of race-based admissions in March 1996.

Massie said CIR's response to the intervention motion clearly showed that CIR expected the intervention to be granted. CIR used the decision to create a false authority for keeping intervenors out of affirmative action cases, she added.

"What I am upset about is that the cases have class-action status," said interventionist and LSA first-year student Erika Dowdell. She added that the class contains white students who might not even realize they are involved in the lawsuit while minority students who want to play an active part in the suit are denied the right to be heard.

"Only white people are allowed in the court room, that's what (the courts) are saying to me," Dowdell said. "It's like a slap in the face."

The circuit court denied a motion filed by the legal representation for both intervention parties that would have allowed them to consolidate the cases.

But the court has decided to allow the parties to present their oral arguments on the same day to the same panel of three judges.

Dillard said for the intervention to occur, the circuit court must find that the University does not adequately represent the interests of the students affected by affirmative action and the parties wishing to intervene have substantial interest in the case.

"We don't feel the University is an accurate representative," Dillard said, adding that the University focuses on educational diversity while the intervenors are more concerned with equal opportunity.

While the intervenors support the University's goals, Dillard said, the intervenors feel their interests are important to the case.

The University "is concerned about what happens once you get inside the door," Dillard said. "We're concerned with assuring these students get in the door."

The intervention would serve to vocalize arguments in the courtroom that the University may be afraid to use, Dillard said. The University would not be willing to admit that the use of other admissions policies are discriminatory, he said, but the intervenors would.

Intervenors have called admissions criteria, including geography and legacy, discriminatory.

"They don't want to give up those" policies, Dillard said.

Dillard added that the University is "subject to external and internal pressures" such as student groups not in favor of affirmative action and legislators who control public education funds.

These pressures may cause the University to be less aggressive in its defense, Dillard said.

02-02-99