Angelo Ancheta, also of Harvard Law School and the Civil Rights Project, said the Michigan case's impact goes far beyond public higher education, directly affecting K-12 education, hiring practices and government contracting law among many other areas.
The Bush administration has "punted" in arguing that the University of Michigan plans are flawed, Ancheta added. In its brief to the court, the administration conceded that the Michigan plans serve a "compelling interest." But, it argued, a Texas plan that accepts the top 10 percent of students is a better way to achieve the same goals.
The University of Michigan case is extremely complex, Ancheta concluded, and many court observers believe Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy hold the key to the court's decision.
Late last month, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF) also held a background briefing in Washington, D.C., for members of the news media on the Gratz v. Bollinger case, which represents the undergraduate portion of the University of Michigan affirmative action case pending.
Initially, the LDF had represented 17 African-American and Latino student-intervenors in the Gratz v. Bollinger case. However, the Court declined to hear arguments on behalf of the students. Theodore Shaw, associate director and counsel for LDF, and Godfrey Dillard, a Michigan attorney who helped represent the minority student-intervenors, presided over the briefing.
— By Ben Hammer Ronald Roach also contributed to this report
© Copyright 2005 by DiverseEducation.com
