Supreme Court decision narrows affirmative action at colleges: What it means in Michigan

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday appeared to leave a 20-year-old precedent set in a landmark University of Michigan case involving race-conscious college admissions in place but so narrowed it that the liberal justices in the minority argued it all but prohibits race from being considered at all in the future.

That earlier decision — Grutter v. Bollinger — wasn't reversed outright by Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in two cases that found affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina ran afoul of the 14th Amendment's anti-discrimination protections, saying race can still be "considered" in limited ways by a college or university in its goal to achieve a diverse student body.

But it said all such admission programs must have a specific, quantifiable goal and endpoint and that any prospective student's race — white, Black, brown or Asian — can never constitute a negative factor toward admission. Any benefit to a student based on race must be based on a thorough examination of his or her "experiences as an individual," and how they overcame discrimination, for instance, rather than assigning any "stereotype" to a race's experience overall.

More: Supreme Court blocks use of affirmative action at Harvard, UNC in blow to diversity efforts

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the three liberal judges who disagreed, said the ruling effectively ends the use of race in admissions. "In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter," she said.

President Joe Biden agreed, saying, "The court has effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions."

There's little effect in Michigan because of Prop 2

While the decision will likely lead to vast changes in admissions practices across the U.S., that’s not the case in Michigan.

Even though the University of Michigan (whose president was Lee Bollinger, hence the name on the case) in June 2003 won the suit by Barbara Grutter over its law school’s admissions policies in that earlier case, Michigan voters three years later overwhelmingly adopted Proposal 2, banning the state's public institutions from giving preferential treatment based on race.

In 2014, a lawsuit aimed at overturning Proposal 2 made it to the Supreme Court and the court said it wasn’t its place to set aside the will of Michigan’s voters, at least not in this case. So Michigan’s institutions are among those in nine states where race is not allowed to be used as a factor in higher education admissions.

That’s not to say Michigan’s change hasn’t hurt diversity, however: In a brief submitted on behalf of the colleges and their desire to use race in a narrowly tailored manner to achieve campus diversity, the University of Michigan said despite “exceptional efforts to attain diversity, broadly defined, without consideration of race … minority enrollment fell sharply in the wake of Proposal 2.”

With that being said, it's important to note that U-M, like other schools in Michigan, has been able to take actions like trying to attract underrepresented groups through targeted outreach and still must follow any federal laws required to receive funding or be part of a national program.

As U-M notes on its website: "The University of Michigan is firmly committed to the goal of creating a diverse educational environment. We continue to work to build a community that is comprised of faculty, staff and students who come to U-M with a wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. This diversity contributes to the excellence and dynamism of the University’s learning environment."

Legacy status could come under fire because of ruling

Another way in which the ruling could have an effect is that it's likely going to result in a bigger push nationwide to end preferential treatment in admissions to the children of alumni who attended a specific school.

The argument, which was made by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion on Thursday, is that those preferences, at least at Harvard, while "race-neutral on their face ... undoubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most" and that the school could meet diversity goals in part by getting rid of it."

That, too, may have little or no effect on Michigan schools, however. U-M has said legacy students don't get an admissions preference, though it does track whether applicants are the children of alumni. Michigan State University's process makes no mention of legacy status though it does have stipends and scholarships available to the children of alumni.

No immediate response from Grutter

The Free Press tried to contact Barbara Grutter, the plaintiff in the original case, to get her reaction, but was unable to do so. She appears to be living in another state now — back at the time of the original case she was living in Plymouth Township — and an attempt to reach her through a relative failed.

In that original case, Grutter — a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 grade-point average and a score of 161 on her LSAT — sued the University of Michigan Law School, alleging she had been discriminated against in violation of the 14th Amendment protection of equal protection under the law and other anti-discrimination statutes.

While the Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs in a companion case — Gratz v. Bollinger — that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions included an impermissible standard that virtually guaranteed admission to any so-called “underrepresented minority,” it did not do so for Grutter. In her case, it found the law school used race as a factor, but not necessarily the determining one — and that was allowed, as long as it was for a “compelling” reason important to the school such as attracting a diverse student body.

Contact Todd Spangler: tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter@tsspangler.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story has been changed to indicate that legacy status has no role in the admissions process at the University of Michigan.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Supreme Court affirmative action ruling: What it means in Michigan