Pomona Weighs in on Affirmative Action
By Kyle Warneck
Staff Writer

Amid the over the five dozen briefs being submitted to the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, et al. and Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger et al., the University of Michigan affirmative action case, one will be signed by Pomona College. Pomona, in conjunction with 28 other highly selective, liberal arts schools, has filed a brief supporting the University of Michigan in this historic case. This brief is in addition to the one filed on behalf of hundreds of colleges, including all five Claremont Colleges, by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU). All of the colleges receive federal funds and will thus be bound by whatever decision the Court makes.

The case will ask the Supreme Court to clarify or overturn the decision set by the Court's last statement on affirmative action in the University of California Regents v. Bakke in 1978. The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action based on quotas violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that race could be used as a factor in the admissions process. That case set a record for amicus curiae briefs, a record which the University of Michigan case is likely to break. In the twenty-five years since Bakke, a variety of approaches have grown up to promote student diversity while following those rules. This is the first case to test what those rules mean.

The case the Supreme Court will be hearing is a combination of two lower court cases, one regarding the University of Michigan Law School, the other against the University of Michigan's undergraduate School. Those two programs have very different approaches to admissions. The Law School considers every application on an individual basis, and includes race in that decision-making process. The undergraduate uses a point system in its admission process. Any applicant earning 150 points is admitted to the school. The question in this case is the legitimacy of awarding 20 additional points to applicants from underrepresented racial groups. The Court is being asked to decide whether either system counts as a quota system under Bakke.

Pomona joins with 28 other colleges in an effort led by the presidents of Amherst, Bowdoin, and Colby to protect the ability to consider race in admissions. The brief takes no stance on the particular mechanisms used by the University of Michigan, but instead cautions the Supreme Court about the risk of an overly broad decision which would require that all college applications be race blind. " Race is there, it's better to be upfront about that," President Stanley said.

Pomona, like the other schools involved in filing the brief, consider race as just one factor in a holistic view of the applicant. While that policy is not specifically challenged by the case, the University of Michigan case could have major reverberations for the future of higher education.

Nancy Bekavac, a former lawyer and the President of Scripps College expressed similar concern, "the worst case scenario is if the courts say you can never take race into consideration in anyway. How could anyone ever establish a process that proves that you didn't look at race?" She points to personal interviews or details in personal statements that might indicate a racial identification.

Even if colleges could construct racially blind application processes, the brief argues that colleges would not want to. The brief cites the history of underrepresented groups at highly selective small liberal arts schools to prove that point. Dean of the College Gary Kates said, "student diversity has not come naturally. It requires a strong effort among everyone at the college" He said that Pomona's decision to sign onto this brief stems from "a deep and abiding commitment to diversity, especially student diversity."

President Stanley was emphatic about the importance of diversity. "Racial diversity is one of the divisive and symbolic issues of our time, but no matter what else you think about it, it is principally an issue of education." He echoed the argument in the brief that educational conversations must engage students from a variety of different viewpoints.

Others say there are broader social implications at stake in this case. Daren Mooko, Director of the Asian American Resource Center, discussed the case in the context of global events. "As a 16-,17-, 18-year old student of color, the options are narrowing. There's discussion of a draft with a pending invasion of Iraq. The prison-industrial complex is growing and college opportunities via affirmative action could disappear. If it all comes true, we could see every single gain of the civil rights movement taken away."

Others echoed the importance of this case for students of color. Power Dynamic Awareness Committee coordinator Kemi Balogun '03 said, "For those that don't care, nothing's at stake. For students of color, the biggest issue is the lack of representation on campus. If there is a nationwide sense that affirmative action is not working, the numbers are going to decrease drastically. These numbers are critical."

The decision by Pomona to file a brief in the case reflects the decisive statements made about the importance of the case. President Bekavac called this process "very exceptional."

President Stanley, a former historian himself, placed the importance of this event in the context of Pomona's own history, "Prior to the '60s and '70s there were very few students of color at small liberal arts schools. When we get comfortable, we see those numbers start to slide again. History demonstrates that special efforts are necessary to find and enroll students from underrepresented groups…It's central to what we do."