The judge was applying equal protection analysis formed under Supreme Court cases dealing with the scrutiny to which classifications based on race will be submitted. The Court has held that such classifications face the strictest scrutiny, only acceptable if there is a compelling state interest that the classification is necessary to promote and/or effect.
In the case in question, the judge ruled that an admissions program utilized by the University of Michigan for several years ending in 1998 was a violation of the constitution because it effectively set quotas for admission of a guaranteed number of black students, and this violates the decision of the Supreme Court in University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). In that case, the Supreme Court held that strict quotas were not allowable, but that consideration of race in admissions policies would be acceptable if it was necessary to support a compelling state interest.
Utilizing this test, the judge then found that the current admissions program of the U of M met that test. In the current program, a student from a qualifying minority is given a 20 point boost on a 150 point scale (according to the story in today’s The (Toledo) Blade). The compelling state interest served by the policy was the promotion of diversity in the student body; in support of the determination that this is a ‘compelling’ interest, the judge found that a “diverse student body produces significant educational benefits…” Accepting this, the judge noted that some consideration of race would be necessary to promote this interest.
According to the news reports I read this morning, the University offered into evidence sociological studies documenting the benefits of diversity on a campus. With some understatement, The (Toledo) Blade noted that such studies are viewed by conservatives as “soft and inconclusive.” Apparently, the Judge did not agree.
I have some difficulty in understanding the Judge’s action, not because of the legal issues involved, but because the reports of the paper indicate he was ruling on summary judgment motions. Such a motion is made prior to a trial, asserting that, even if one accepts everything the other side says is true, then they can’t win on the basis of the law. Clearly, this could easily lead to summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the old, race-based quota system; there would be nothing to try if even the assertions of the defendant would still be a violation of the constitution. But how the judge could decide as a matter of law that there wasn’t even an issue of fact as to the benefits of diversity, I am not sure. I’d have to know under exactly what federal rule of civil procedure the judge was working.
As it stands, there are a few rulings of similar nature, most notably one out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the University of Washington; there is also at least one decision to the contrary from the Circuit Court of Appeals covering the University of Texas. Assuming that the Michigan ruling is upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeals, I think it likely the Supreme Court will finally have to add some guidelines as to when, if ever, race can actually be a consideration in an application for education at a state school.
Quick side note: I wonder why the judge didn’t just rule that the compelling state interest was remedy of past racial discrimination, the usual rationale used to defend affirmative action programs…