The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Dec. 2 that it will hear the University of Michigan reverse discrimination case, which could potentially end affirmative action in all public universities by June 2003.

“”This is a moment of great significance in our nation’s history,”” said University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman . “”We stand at the threshold of a decision that will have a profound impact on our nation’s higher education system and on our race relations broadly.””

The court hopes that its ruling would potentially end the ambiguity over the 1978 Bakke v. University of California ruling, in which the Supreme Court allowed for race to be a factor in university admissions but outlawed racial quotas.

Two potential students of the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, and one potential law student, Barbara Grutter, have filed a suit against the university claiming that their applications were judged harder than those applications received from students of color.

Potential applicants at the university are evaluated on a 150-point scale based on their LSAT scores, grade point average and other variables. While a white student will receive one point for having a good essay, a student of color will receive an extra 20 points for being a minority.

However, the Center for Individual Rights, the party representing the prosecution, believes that the University of Michigan’s policy toward admitting minority students is a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans all forms of racial discrimination in federally funded universities.

Court records about the University of Michigan’s law school cite that while a white applicant with an LSAT score of 165 and a GPA between 3.25 and 3.49 has about a 22 percent chance of admission, a minority student with similar marks is almost guaranteed entry.

Grutter had a 3.8 GPA, scored 161 on the LSAT and had started her own consulting firm by 1996 when she applied to the law school.

These issues do not affect UCSD because Proposition 209, which prohibits discrimination and granting preferential treatment on the basis of race, was passed by California voters in 1997.

“”Race cannot be considered in the awarding of public benefit,”” Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph Watson said. “”I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think that the Supreme Court is going to decide that race must be considered, and that would be the only way that they could reverse the California decision.””

Many UCSD students believe that these policies are unfair to others who deserve admittance to the university.

“”While affirmative action may provide opportunities for underprivileged minorities, it is counterproductive for universities because it does not necessarily ensure the most qualified students will be admitted,”” said John Muir College senior Steven Reis.

Watson, however, said that many students of color do not have the necessary resources available to them to be successful.

“”The real issue is that many students of color don’t have the same opportunities,”” he said. “”Many don’t have access to the same quality education.””

Affirmative action cases also take past and current racial discrimination into account, which Watson said should be a factor in deciding this case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, where Grutter lost her case before the successful appeal to the Supreme Court, believes that affirmative action is a necessity in keeping the number of minority students high.

The court reported that without special allowances given to minority students, only 4 percent of the incoming class of 2000 at the University of Michigan would have been granted admission. This is compared to the 14.5 percent that were accepted that year under their admission regulations.

A similar Wesleyan University study reports that black students on many campuses would drop below 2 percent if such minority advancement ended. To many UCSD students, this statistic is evidence of a much larger societal problem.

“”I think that affirmative action is just a temporary solution to a major problem in society,”” said Thurgood Marshall College sophomore Sam Maghsoodoo. “”Lowering the bar for certain groups in university admissions is just a cure for the symptoms of a problem that needs to be solved at the root.””

These factors will be discussed by the nine Supreme Court members, who in the past have been split on the issue of race. Four of the current members — Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist — have historically opposed affirmative action, while John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have all been in favor of such policies.

The ninth member, Sandra Day O’Connor, stands to be the decisive vote in this issue, since her decision will most likely create a majority for either stance and subsequently decide the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Race relations in education timeline

A look at racial matters in the history of education in the United States.

1954 — Brown v. Board of Education The U.S. Supreme Court rules that separate facilities, including schools, is inherently unequal. Segregated schools in the South subsequently integrate.

1961 — Affirmative Action President John F. Kennedy requires that all government agencies, including schools, make efforts to expand opportunities to minorities.

1978 — Bakke v. University of California U.S. Supreme Court upholds the use of race as factor in admissions, but outlaws quotas.

1998 — Standing Policies 1 and 2 UC Regents pass resolutions mandating that UC would no longer use race or gender in admissions decisions.