Groups denied access to lawsuit

Nearly a year ago, efforts to challenge the University's use of race as a factor in its admissions processes began.

Several Michigan residents, who had applied to the University, believed they had been unfairly denied admission and filed lawsuits.

Since the legislatures first sparked the issue, two lawsuits have been filed threatening the University's admissions policies in both the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and the Law School, igniting campus debates, heightening campus act

Cantor

ivism and causing discussion within the student body. Currently, both sides of the issue are ready for the next phase of the lawsuit.

"This has certainly been a very challenging year for all of us, but I think that we have so much at stake, and we have to stay clear about our priorities and our goals and we have to, I think, remember to respect each other's opinions and points of view," said Lisa Baker, former associate vice president for University relations.

In October 1997, the Center for Individual Rights filed the first of two lawsuits against the University, arguing that two white high school students, Michigan residents Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, were unfairly evaluated in the admissions process because race was used as a factor. They claim less qualified minority students were admitted into the College of LSA over them.

On Dec. 3, 1997, the CIR filed a second lawsuit against the University on behalf of Barbara Gutter, a white applicant who asserts she was unfairly evaluated in the University's Law School's admission process in the selection of the incoming class of 1995.

During the past year, the two parties have been exchanging motions, responding to motions and reacting to attempted interventions from outside groups.

In a ruling handed down on July 6, 1998, U.S District Judge Bernard Friedman denied the motion of 41 students - from Texas, California and Michigan - to become co-defendants in the lawsuit challenging the Law School. The request filed on March 26, was backed by three campus groups that are in favor of affirmative action; including Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and Law Students for Affirmative Action.

"We did not oppose the motion to intervene," said University spokesperson Julie Peterson.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan denied a similar motion to intervene in the lawsuit pending against the College of LSA from 17 high school students July 7, 1998. The motion was filed in February by several groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, Affirmative Action's Preservation.

The University's response to the motion to intervene filed after the request had been made, stated the defendants recognize that a prospect of a third party in either court case "could significantly complicate discovery and possibly other aspects of these cases."

Both coalitions were attempting to help defend the University's practice of affirmative action.

"I was surprised by the decision," said Miranda Massie, the lead attorney for the group of students.

Massie described the coalition of students as having "a tremendous personal stake in affirmative action. A much greater stake than any University can have."

Drawing attention to past discrimination, gender issues and the validity of the LSAT scores was among the coalition's objectives, Massie said.

"I am absolutely certain the University will inadequately represent the interests of the students," Massie said.

"The University of Michigan is notorious in this region for its wretched record in racism in particular but also on sexism," Massie said.

Massie said the coalition has filed a motion for reconsideration. The group intends to appeal to the 6th Circuit immediately if Friedman does not reverse his earlier decision.

Allowing the students to intervene in the lawsuit would expand the scope of the case, Massie said. 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."

University President Lee Bollinger said he did not oppose the interventions, adding that the University's defense team will adequately defend its admissions practices.

"We took a general neutral position on this case," Bollinger said. "My belief is the University will fully defend the policy. The University will make the constitutional argument as effective as it can be made."

Godfrey Dillard, an attorney representing the high school student coalition, said the judge's decision was not unexpected because of the courts' increasingly conservative stances.

"The traditional court was a refuge for the oppressed. Now, courts are moving away from that role," Dillard said. "We see retrenchment on a broad range."

Dillard said the coalition is in the process of meeting to decide where to appeal Duggan's decision.

CIR attorney Terry Pell said the 41-member student group that 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.

Pell said the plaintiffs have not wavered from their positions.

"Nothing that we've seen so far deterred us from what we knew at the beginning, that race is the predominant factor in the U of M's admissions process, and that is clearly unconstitutional," Pell said.

He added that the coalition may benefit form the policies but "they have no protected legal interests at stake in this case."

LSA senior Jessica Curtin, one of the students seeking to intervene, described the judge's decision as outrageous.

"Our futures are being decided over our heads," Curtin said.

Baker said the University has incurred $818,000 (as of April) in legal fees and expenses from outside legal counsel. In addition to the utilizing internal legal expertise, the University has hired the law firms of Wimer, Cutler and Pickering, which is based in Washington D.C., and Butzel, Long in Detroit.

"We were sued. This was brought against us," Baker said.

"Now that we've been forced with these suits, we will defend them vigorously," she said.

University Provost Nancy Cantor said it is the University's responsibility to provide students with a diverse atmosphere in which perspectives are represented, and students have the opportunity to explore their viewpoints.

"We should not question anyone who's here," Cantor said.

Members of the University community, she said, must remind themselves that all students on campus were chosen to attend the University and contribute to the diverse composition of this community.

- Daily Staff Reporter Katie Plona contributed to this report.

09-08-98