Supreme Court close to right in affirmative action rulings

In the best of all worlds, there would be no need for affirmative action programs.
We don't live in that world, at least not yet. But the world is changing, and for that reason, the decision -- more accurately the combination of decisions -- rendered this week by the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Barbara Grutter, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher against the University of Michigan -- got it about right.
Almost exactly 25 years ago, the court spoke in the case of Bakke vs. the University of California, and, speaking through then Justice Louis Powell, said that affirmative action was permissible, but not quotas. This week, the court, speaking through Justice Sandra Day O'Connor refined that position.
It is going to be years while the various institutions sort out a practical response to this week's decisions in the two cases involving the University of Michigan undergraduate and law schools.
A cacophony of voices
All nine justices spoke through a total of 13 opinions that included dissents and concurrences exhibiting various levels of passion.
But the deciding voice was that of Justice O'Connor, and it was a voice both practical and compassionate, speaking in cases that can inspire strong emotions on either side.
The focus in the cases fell on the 20 quality points the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions program awarded to students who were members of minority groups that are underrepresented in the student body. Out of a possible 150 points, a student seeking admission needed 100. Two white students who were denied admission challenged the system on the grounds that it discriminated against them by giving the 20 preference points to African-American, native American and Hispanic applicants.
The plaintiffs won on numerical grounds, but in a companion case, the court acknowledged that universities must have the ability to consider in some way the beneficial effects on the institution and society at large in making accommodations for racial balance. Commentator Daniel Schorr captured the spirit of the decisions, characterizing it as the don't ask, don't tell policy of college admissions.
Testing equality
As we pointed out in this space in April, shortly after the Michigan cases were argued before the court, American society has not yet evolved to the point of being colorblind. We cited a recent study conducted by professors at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Preliminary results of the study released earlier this year showed that 2,500 resumes with white-sounding first names received 50 percent more responses than 2,500 identical resumes filled out with black-sounding names.
When all it takes to make finding a job easier is having a name such as Neil, Brett, Greg, Emily, Anne or Jill rather than Tamika, Ebony, Aisha, Rasheed, Kareem or Tyrone, it makes it harder to believe that society owes Barbara, Jennifer and Patrick an apology because they didn't get into their first choice, the University of Michigan.
Whose legacy is being gored?
One of the things the nation's universities are going to have to address is if their various numerical advantages they provide to legacies -- the sons and daughters of alumni -- are permissible. Those legacies go to white students more than 90 percent of the time, according to a study at the University of Virginia, and so impact unfavorably on students of color. Most universities are loath to give up their legacy programs because alumni donations are important parts of university budgets, and mom and dad are less likely to give to their alma mater if Greg or Jill gets a letter of rejection.
Speaking in a rare interview with the Chicago Tribune a day after the court's decisions were announce, Justice O'Connor said that if America provided adequate educational opportunities for young people, it could achieve the goal of ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Even as 25 years have passed since Bakke, it could be another 25 years before the court takes another hard look at affirmative action. What the court decides then will depend entirely on how good a job the American people and American institutions have done in becoming colorblind in matters of education, employment and comity.