Affirmative-action ruling could have impact here

University to join Harvard in filing legal brief in support of University of Michigan’s policy of using race as a factor in admissions.

By: Jeff Milgram
   Princeton University may join Harvard in filing a legal brief in support of the University of Michigan’s policy of using race as a factor in admissions.
   "We are considering joining the brief that Harvard is preparing," Princeton’s director of communication, Lauren Robinson-Brown, said Monday.
   President Shirley M. Tilghman said Monday that Princeton would join Harvard’s petition once it is written and is found to conform to the university’s philosophy on diversity.
   Harvard officials said the university would file the legal brief by Feb. 18.
   The case, which will be heard this spring by the U.S. Supreme Court, centers on whether Michigan’s affirmative-action policy violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection rights of the white students who filed suit.
   On Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department, acting on the orders of President George W. Bush, filed a brief opposing Michigan’s policy. Harvard filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Michigan when the case was heard by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Gary Orfield, a Harvard professor, testified as an expert witness for Michigan.
   At the heart of the Michigan case is an admission policy that uses a numerical point system. The 150-point system gives 20 points to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, but only 12 points to applicants with perfect SAT scores.
   Whites and Asians receive no points. Generally, applicants who score 100 points are admitted.
   The ruling in the Michigan case could be the most significant decision on affirmative action since the court ruled that racial quotas were illegal in the landmark case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In that ruling, written by Justice Louis Powell, the court said universities could use race as a factor in admissions, but could not set quotas.
   The University of Michigan process came under fire in 1997 in two cases alleging that the university uses racial quotas.
   Several white undergraduate applicants argued that the points system violated the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee. The plaintiffs argued they were denied admission in favor of less qualified applicants,
   In a case involving Michigan’s law school, plaintiffs argued there was a quota system for minorities.
   Princeton has used affirmative action in admissions since 1963, when then-President Robert Goheen said the university would seek to attract and enroll the top students from underrepresented racial groups. This year, 27 percent of Princeton’s undergraduates are minorities.
   Princeton’s admissions process is much different from Michigan’s.
   "All applicants are admitted on the same basis," writes Dean of Admission Fred Hargadon on the admission’s office Web site. "Because we strongly believe in the educational value of bringing together in a residential university capable students from a variety of backgrounds, we do make special efforts to encourage students from minority backgrounds to become aware of what Princeton has to offer and what each of them, as individuals, has to offer."
   Princeton uses no quotas for foreign students or for men and women.
   Princeton uses a large admissions staff to whittle the 14,500 applicants down to the 1,600 students who are accepted. The university says it looks at each application individually and weighs a whole set of criteria, such as grades, SATs and other tests, the rigor of the high school course work, extracurricular activities and recommendations.
   While the admission process is different, Princeton could be affected if the court rules against the University of Michigan. A narrow ruling against Michigan would have little or no effect, Dr. Tilghman said. But if the court rules that race can play no part in the admission process — in other words, totally reverses Bakke — Princeton and other private universities that accept federal money would be affected.
   "If the court decides to completely overturn Bakke and essentially reverse Justice Powell’s very carefully worded opinion that race is one of many considerations, then it will have a direct relevance to us," Dr. Tilghman said.
   As an indication of just how sensitive the issue of affirmative action is, the intervention by the White House has divided the administration’s two most prominent blacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice. Mr. Powell defended the use of affirmative action in the Michigan case, while Ms. Rice defended the president.
   On the flip side of affirmative action, the use of preferences for alumni children, known as legacy preferences, has come under fire. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has called for an end to legacy preferences.
   Among Princeton’s 4,600 undergraduates, more than 600, or 13 percent, are alumni children. And the acceptance rate for alumni children is 35 percent, compared to 11 percent overall.
   Colleges favor the legacy preference because it brings in contributions from alumni. But critics say legacy preferences benefit applicants who are white and wealthy.
   "We’ve looked at this carefully," Dr. Tilghman said.
   Having a parent who went to Princeton can help, Dean Hargadon said on the Web site. "When such an applicant is in the top part of our applicant group and appears as competitive as those we otherwise might be admitting, the fact that the applicant has had a parent who attended Princeton is taken into consideration," he wrote. "However, no student is admitted simply because he or she is the offspring of a Princeton graduate."
   Dr. Tilghman said the university has found that alumni children frequently have grades and test scores that get them into Princeton without the legacy preference and they do very well once they are admitted.