WASHINGTON Court nixes school race policy

Congress can force libraries to equip computers with anti-smut filters.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In two split decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions to universities but limited how much a factor race can play in the selection of students.
The high court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan to give minority preference, but did not go as far as opponents of affirmative action had wanted.
The court approved a separate program used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.
The Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in today's decision.
The court divided in both cases. It upheld the law school program that sought a "critical mass" of minorities by a 5-4 vote, with O'Connor siding with the court's more liberal justices to decide the case.
Undergraduate program
The court split 6-3 in finding the undergraduate program unconstitutional. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in the undergraduate case, joined by O'Connor and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.
Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, but the undergraduate school's admissions policy is not the way to get there, the court majority said.
"The university's policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity," that Michigan claimed justified the policy, Rehnquist wrote.
The ruling affects tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, that have looked for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.
Defending its general approach to affirmative action, the university has said that having what it calls a critical mass of minority students benefits the whole student body. Minorities must be present in more than token numbers to ensure all students can interact, the university has said.
School's assertion
Michigan insists that it accepts only academically qualified students, no matter what their race.
Michigan's undergraduate school used a 150-point index to screen applicants. The 20 points awarded to minorities was more than the school awarded for some measures of academic excellence, writing ability or leadership skills. Outstanding athletes also got 20 points, as did impoverished applicants.
'Flagged' applications
The school has also "flagged" minority applications, making it easier to keep an applicant in the pool even if he or she flunked an initial review.
Also today, a divided Supreme Court ruled that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.
The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.
The court said that because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 6-3 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money. Four justices said the law was constitutional, and two others said it was allowable as long as patrons were not denied Internet access.
Struck down law
In an additional ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a California law intended to help Holocaust survivors collect on insurance policies from the Nazi era, ruling today that the law was unconstitutional meddling by a state in foreign affairs.
The court divided 5-4 to side with the Bush administration, which had urged the court to strike down the law. The administration said the law hurts the government's efforts to speak "with one voice" in international affairs.
The case arose because of what California called a deliberate attempt to stonewall elderly Holocaust survivors or heirs who inquired about dormant policies. The state wanted any insurer doing business there to turn over records of Holocaust-era insurance policies or risk losing their license to do business in the state.
The Supreme Court also agreed today to decide if states can block local governments from offering local phone and Internet service, a growing trend in the new competitive age.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.