June 5, 2001
Contact: Lesley Deaderick (614) 292-0569
Columbus -- The Ohio State University and its College of Law filed an amicus brief Thursday (5/31) with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in support of the University of Michigan Law School’s position in the affirmative action case Grutter v. Bollinger.
The University of Michigan is in the process of appealing a March federal district court ruling that declared its law school admissions policy unconstitutional because race is used as one factor in reviewing applicants. The judge also ordered the school to immediately suspend any consideration of race in admissions. A stay was granted on that ruling pending the outcome of the university’s appeal.
The district court decision in that case currently does not affect Ohio State, said Steve McDonald, associate legal counsel for the university, but any decision from the Sixth Circuit would be binding on Ohio State. Currently, Ohio State follows the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows the university to consider race as one factor in admissions decisions, he said.
“When we make law school admissions decisions, we are looking for applicants who not only are good students, but who also will contribute the most to our learning environment while in school and to the profession of law and society after they graduate, and we therefore take many factors beyond grades and test scores into account,” McDonald said. “We are very interested in the outcome of the case because it could affect our ability to do that.”
The March ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger stems from a 1997 lawsuit filed by the Center for Individual Rights, a nonprofit legal group, on behalf of a white student who alleged that she was denied admission to Michigan’s law school because students of color with lower grades and tests scores had been admitted.
The ruling is in direct conflict with a decision handed down in December by U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Duggan in a separate case involving the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which also uses race as one of many criteria. In that case, Duggan ruled that the policy was constitutional because it “produces significant educational benefits.”
###