Federal Court Upholds U-Michigan's Use of Race in Admissions
By Erik Lords

DETROIT
Supporters of affirmative action across the nation are feeling upbeat after a judge's ruling in federal court here upheld the University of Michigan's use of race in admissions last month.
The decision — which came just one week after an affirmative action victory in Washington State — might shift national momentum back in favor of higher education's use of race in admissions, several experts says.
"The judge made the right decision — morally, practically and legally," says Dr. William B. Harvey, director of the Office of Minorities in Higher Education at the American Council on Education. "I think the judge realized that students from all backgrounds benefit from a diverse learning environment, and that educational apartheid will lead to social apartheid."
Last month the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the University of Washington Law School acted legally when it considered an applicant's race in admissions decisions (see story, pg. 22). A week later in a 51-page decision, U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan ruled that Michigan's current affirmative action admissions program is constitutional, but he also said that Michigan's old policy, used from 1995-98, was unconstitutional because it reserved a specific number of spots for minority students.
 "A racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant educational benefits such that diversity, in the context of higher education, constitutes a compelling government interest," Duggan wrote in his decision.
In recent months, officials at the University of Michigan — who defended their policies by presenting expert research on the value of diversity — gained the support of 20 Fortune 500 companies and dozens of educational associations, many of which wrote briefs to the court on the university's behalf (see Black Issues, Nov. 9). The case also was being monitored closely by other colleges that use race as a factor
in admissions.
"This victory shows that the pendulum is swinging back in support of affirmative action," says Michael Steinberg, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Detroit and one of the lawyers who represented a group of minority students who intervened on behalf of Michigan in the case. "The two opinions together are a forceful rejection of a broadside attack on affirmative action."