The United States supreme court yesterday upheld the principle of affirmative action in one of the most keenly awaited decisions by the court in recent years.
The court ruled, by the narrowest majority, that the University of Michigan law school was entitled to consider race in its admissions policy.
It ruled against the system that awards a specific number of points depending on the race of all applicants.
The split decision meant that the interpretation of the ruling is likely to end up back in courts. The ruling was seen as the most important judicial decision on the issue of race for a quarter of a century. The Bush administration had supported the challenge.
At stake was whether the constitution forbade the use of race in any way in determining who should be admitted to a university.
The University of Michigan had a policy which allowed it to favour qualified black, Latino and native American students to create a racially diverse class.
The university’s law school sought a ”critical mass” of minority students, which has varied between 10 and 17% of the class. This principle has been upheld by the court. The university also awarded points to racial minorities applying to the university to help it decide which of 25 000 applicants annually to admit. This system has not been upheld.
The 32-page 5-4 majority ruling, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, was that 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”.
The university had argued that all students benefited from a racially diverse class.
In the secondary decision, as to whether a points system for the undergraduate applicants was permissible, Chief Justice William Rehnquist announced a 6-3 decision which declared that such a system violated the constitutional provisions of equal protection under the law.
The court decided that the points system was too close to a quota, which had been deemed unconstitutional in a 1978 decision.
The decision was welcomed as a victory by the University of Michigan. The university’s president, Mary Sue Coleman, said: ”This is a wonderful, wonderful day and we are very excited and very delighted.”
University officials said that they would tailor their admissions policy to accommodate the ruling on the points system.
The incoming dean of the law school, Evan Caminker, also welcomed the decision, saying that the law school’s policy was to admit students who would ”enrich the class room environment”. The Bush administration had supported the action, which was brought by white students who claimed that they had been the victims of the policy.
Rod Paige, the US education secretary and one of two black men in the Bush cabinet, told the Guardian on a visit to Britain last week: ”I’m opposed to racial discrimination. You’re saying that now racial discrimination is fine because it’s in your favour?
”Where’s the moral consistency here? I don’t think your racial membership should be an asset or a burden.”
Opponents of affirmative action had hoped that the court would decide against the law school’s policy, thus effectively ending the principle.
Supporters of affirmative action who gave evidence on behalf of the university included General Motors, Microsoft and many senior members of the US military, who said that a racially diverse military was essential for national security.
It is thought that the presence of senior military personnel may have been a key factor in swinging the vote.
The court traditionally splits on liberal/conservative lines with the latter normally having a 5-4 advantage, most notably in the decision to uphold the election of President Bush.
· A divided supreme court ruled yesterday that Congress could force the nation’s public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.
The technology, intended to keep pornography from children, did not violate the constitutional right of freedom of speech, the court ruled.
The 6-3 ruling reinstated a law which told libraries to install filters or surrender federal funds. The court described pornography in libraries as a serious problem.- Guardian Unlimited Â