High court justices uphold goal of fostering diversity
Twenty-five years after the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative-action quotas as a tool for increasing minority college enrollment, the high court provided needed guidance Monday for campuses struggling to achieve greater diversity. It upheld a University of Michigan law school admissions program that takes race into account, but struck down the university's awarding of bonus points to minorities who apply as freshmen.

At first glance, the two decisions seem to be at odds. But in reality, they skillfully reaffirm a key principle: Affirmative action programs are constitutional so long as they are not applied arbitrarily — or in a way that is punitive to whites.

By embracing the need for a racial mixture on campuses, the justices underscored the important goal of fostering diversity in society. This has been argued by groups that include leading educators, business executives and retired military officers.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TIMELINE

1941: President Franklin Roosevelt issues an executive order prohibiting discrimination by government contractors.
1970: The Nixon administration orders federal contractors to set "goals and timetables" for hiring minorities.

1978: In University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court rules that colleges may consider race as one factor in admissions.

1986: The Supreme Court rules that layoffs of senior white teachers to protect new black hires is unconstitutional.

1995: The Supreme Court limits racial preferences in federal highway contracts.

Source: Congressional Quarterly, USA TODAY research



And the court provided clearer guidelines on what constitutes an illegal quota. In its 1978 case, University of California v. Bakke, the court banned strict numerical quotas. In the latest ruling, it banned "point systems" that give minority applicants such an advantage that race effectively becomes the determining factor.

The onus is now on schools to be more thoughtful in the way they structure their affirmative action plans. The ruling requires them to judge the merits of each applicant, rather than relying on simple formulas.

That was one problem the court had with Michigan's system for admitting undergraduates. It gave every minority who applied to its freshman class an automatic 20 points out of a maximum 150 assigned to candidates. That bonus was more than the university awarded for writing skills and some other academic achievements. In rejecting the approach, the court said such a large bonus essentially made race a decisive factor "for virtually every minimally qualified ... minority applicant."

While schools that use such methods need to design new solutions, they still will have far more leeway than had the court banned all affirmative action, and thus handed a clear-cut victory to opponents of programs aimed at increasing diversity. That would have left schools judging kids strictly on SAT scores and grade-point averages while they scrambled to find alternatives that didn't specifically consider race.

Yet basing college admission solely on test scores would be as arbitrary as racial quotas. Institutions that want a rich mix of students of varying backgrounds have long avoided such rigid systems in favor of close evaluations of individual applications.

Indeed, colleges routinely show preferences to applicants who might not have the highest academic achievements. Schools give special consideration to athletes, musicians, children of alumni or those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. In 1996, for example, members of the California Board of Regents who helped abolish affirmative action at the University of California were found to have had a preference program for admitting children of friends.

On Monday, the court reaffirmed extending preferences to minorities, as well. "Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civil life of our nation is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized," it said.

But while race counts, the court warned, it can't count for everything.