|
|
|
|
|
|
News Releases & Articles
| Statements by University Leaders & Others
| Press Kits, Photos & Media Contacts |
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
___________________________________ JENNIFER GRATZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
LEE BOLLINGER, et al.,Defendants,
___________________________________
)
)
) Civil Action No. 97-75231
)
) Hon. Patrick Duggan
)
) Hon. Thomas A.Carlson
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
John H. Pickering
John Payton
Jane Sherburne
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
2445 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 663-6000ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Philip J. Kessler, P15921
Leonard M. Niehoff, P36695
BUTZEL LONG
350 South Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(734) 213-3625
DATE: May 3, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED..................................iv
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES..................................................................v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................vi
INDEX OF EXHIBITS....................................................................................xi
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS......................................................4
Diversity is Essential to the University of Michigan's Educational
Mission.....................................................................................................4 The University Considers Race and Ethnicity as a Factor in
Admissions...............................................................................................7 The LS&A Admissions Process............................................................11 The University Manages Enrollment...................................................20 The Data Illustrate the Admissions Process........................................24 The University Vigorously Recruits Minority Applicants...................27 The Plaintiffs.................................................................................28 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................31
I. CONTROLLING PRECEDENT PERMITS THE
COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATION OF RACE IN
UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS POLICIES...................................32 A. "A Properly Devised Admissions Program Involving
the Competitive Consideration of Race and Ethnic
Origin" is Constitutional.........................................................32 1. Bakke Embodies Three Principles..................................33 a. Diversity is a Compelling Interest...........................35 b. A Broad Sense Of Diversity: Race Is One of
Many Factors.........................................39
ii
c. Bakke's Two Limitations: Fixed Quotas are
Impermissible and Admitted Minority Students
Must be Qualified.....................................................39 1) Fixed Racial Quotas are Prohibited..................40 2) Only Qualified Applicants may be Admitted....45 B. Bakke is Binding Precedent....................................................47 1. The Powell Opinion -- the Narrowest Opinion That
Supports the Judgment -- States the Holding of the
Court.................................................................................47 2. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit Have Followed
Bakke................................................................................51 3. Hopwood was Wrongly Decided.......................................53 II. THE LS&A ADMISSIONS PROCESS COMPLIES WITH
THE PRINCIPLES OF BAKKE.....................................................54 A. There Is No Quota for Minority Admissions.........................55 B. The University Does Not Have a "Two-Track"
Admissions System............................................56 C. The Consideration of Race is Competitive............................60 III. THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED
TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY DEFENSE...................................................................63 A. The Individual Defendants Cannot Be Held Liable for
Damages for Carrying Out a Policy Consistent with the
Bakke Decision........................................................................65 B. The Undisputed Evidence Shows that the University of Michigan's Admissions Policy Satisfies the Bakke Standard....................................................................................67 IV. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ON PLAINTIFFS' DAMAGES CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VI
OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.........................................................68 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................71
iii
CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' claims because the undisputed factual record shows that the admissions practices of the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts -- which involve the "competitive consideration of race" as a "single though important factor" in order to achieve the benefits of a diverse student body -- satisfy the standards set out in Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
2. Whether the individual University officials who are sued for damages in their individual capacities are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' damages claims because the undisputed record demonstrates that they have not violated Plaintiffs' "clearly established constitutional rights," and therefore enjoy a qualified immunity from suit under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). 3. Whether the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan is entitled to summary judgment on Plainitffs' damages claims brought under Title VI because it would not have been "obvious" to the Board of Regents that, by accepting federal funds, it was subjecting itself to liability in damages on account of an admissions system that complies fully with Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
iv
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977).
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ., 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983).
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Adams v. Metiva,
31 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................65 Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pe�a,
515 U.S. 200 (1995) .........................................................................35, 53 Agostini v. Felton,
521 U.S. 203 (1997)................................................................................54 Anderson v. Creighton,
483 U.S. 635 (1987)................................................................................64 Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes,
118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998)............................................................................46 Baldasar v. Illinois,
446 U.S. 222 (1980)................................................................................49 Bloch v. Ribar,
156 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 1998)..................................................................63 Brown v. Board of Education,
347 U.S. 483 (1954)..................................................................................9 Buckner v. Kilgore,
36 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................65 Cameron v. Seitz,
38 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 1994)....................................................................64 City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co.,
109 S. Ct. 706 (1989)............................................................35, 44, 50, 51 Crawford-El v. Britton,
118 S. Ct. 1584 (1998)......................................................................64, 65 Davis v. Halpern,
768 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)..........................................................52 Dickerson v. McClellan,
101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1996)....................................................63, 64, 65
vi
Estate of Dietrich v. Burrows,
167 F.3d 1007 (6th Cir. 1999)...............................................................64 Estate of Ritter v. University of Michigan,
851 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1988).................................................................68 Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools,
503 U.S. 60 (1992)...........................................................................68, 69 Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf,
142 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 1998).................................................................69 Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District,
118 S. Ct. 1989 (1998)...............................................................68, 69, 70 Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission,
463 U.S. 582 (1983)................................................................................69 Harlow v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 800 (1982)....................................................................63, 64, 65 Healy v. James,
408 U.S. 169 (1972)................................................................................37 Hohn v. United States,
118 S. Ct. 1969 (1998)...........................................................................53 Hopwood v. State of Texas,
78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996).............................................................53, 66 Jackson-El v. Winsor,
986 F. Supp. 440 (E.D. Mich. 1997)......................................................65 Jacobson v. Cincinnati Board of Education,
961 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1992)............................................................46, 52 Johnson v. Transportation Agency,
480 U.S. 616 (1987)....................................................................43, 44, 51
vii
Keyishian v. Board of Regents,
385 U.S. 589 (1967)......................................................................2, 36, 37 Marks v. United States,
430 U.S. 188 (1977)..............................................................34, 48, 49, 50 Marsh v. Arn,
937 F.2d 1056 (6th Cir. 1991)................................................................66 Mumford v. Zieba,
4 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 1993)......................................................................65 Nichols v. United States,
511 U.S. 738 (1994)..........................................................................48, 49 Ohio Civil Service Employees Association v. Seiter,
858 F.2d 1171 (6th Cir. 1988)................................................................66 Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education,
706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983)............................................................51, 52 Parate v. Isibor,
868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989)..................................................................47 Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
451 U.S. 1 (1981)....................................................................................69 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
438 U.S. 265 (1978)........................................................................passim Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing,
474 U.S. 214 (1985)......................................................................3, 46, 68 Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights,
955 F.2d 1092 (6th Cir. 1992)................................................................65 Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.,
490 U.S. 477 (1989)................................................................................54 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia,
515 U.S. 819 (1995)...........................................................................3, 38
viii
Russo v. City of Cincinnati,
953 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992)...............................................................64 Rust v. Sullivan,
500 U.S. 173 (1991)...............................................................................38 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44 (1996).................................................................................68 Smith v. University of Washington Law School,
2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (W.D. Wash. 1998)..................................................52 Smith v. University of Washington Law School,
No. C97-335Z (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 1998)...............................49, 50, 53 State Oil Company v. Kahn,
118 S. Ct. 275 (1997).............................................................................54 Sweezy v. New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234 (1957).....................................................................2, 37, 46 Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron,
40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1994)...................................................................47 United States v. Lanier,
520 U.S. 259 (1997)................................................................................69 United States v. Ovalle,
136 F.3d 1092 (6th Cir. 1998)................................................................52 United States v. Paradise,
480 U.S. 149 (1987)................................................................................46 University and Community College System v. Farmer,
930 P.2d 730 (Nev. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1186 (1998)...........52 Wessmann v. Gittens,
160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998)..................................................................52 Winkes v. Brown University,
747 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1984)..................................................................52
ix
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education,
476 U.S. 267 (1986)................................................................................51
STATUTES Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. � 2000d....................passim
Mich. Const., art. 8..........................................................................................47
ARTICLES Akhil Reed Amar and Neal Kumar Katyal, Bakke's Fate, UCLA Law Review,
Aug. 1996.........................................................................................35, 66 Lee Bollinger and Nancy Cantor, The Educational Importance of Race,
Wash. Post, Apr. 28, 1998...................................................................5, 7 Nat Hentoff, A Challenge to Bill Lann Lee, The Village Voice,
Jan. 13, 1998..........................................................................................64 Deborah C. Malamud, Affirmative Action, Diversity, and the Black Middle
Class , 68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 939 (1996)...................................................66Peter Schmidt, U. of Michigan Turns to Scholars to Bolster Its Defense
of Affirmative Action , Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 2, 1999.....54Cass R. Sunstein, Foreword: Leaving Things Undecided,
110 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1996)....................................................................66 Jaimie Winkler, Expert Witness Discusses Diversity, Michigan Daily,
Mar. 18, 1999........................................................................................54 Kate Zernike, Affirmative Action Embattled Handbooks Encourage Students'
Suits , Boston Globe, Jan. 27, 1999........................................................64
MISCELLANEOUS 59 Fed. Reg. 8761 (1994)................................................................................66
x
INDEX OF EXHIBITS Volume 1: Documents and Materials Materials
Exhibit Description
A.
Senate Assembly Statement, The Value of Diversity, dated January 26, 1998
B.
Statement of National Board of Directors, University of Michigan Alumni Association, dated April 24, 1998
C.
Article by Provost Nancy Cantor in Michigan Alumnus, A Michigan Legacy: Ensuring Diversity and Democracy on Campus, Summer 1998
D.
The Michigan Mandate, dated March, 1990 (Deposition Exhibit 121)
E.
Association of American Universities statement, On the Importance of Diversity in University Admission, dated April 14, 1997
F.
Memo from Theodore Spencer re: Reason for Diversity, dated September 25, 1996 (Deposition Exhibit 21)
G.
1995 SCUGA Guidelines (Deposition Exhibit 4)
H.
1998 Selection Index Guidelines (Deposition Exhibit 11)
I.
1998 Instruction for Automatic Decisions on LS&A Applicants (Deposition Exhibit 12)
J.
1998 Freshman Application Sort (Deposition Exhibit 19)
K.
The University of Michigan Bulletin (Viewbook for 1994-95 school year) (Deposition Exhibit 77)
L.
1997 SCUGA listing of high schools (Deposition Exhibit 18)
M.
College of LS&A Guidelines for All Terms of 1998 (Deposition Exhibit 10)
N.
College of LS&A Guidelines for All Terms of 1995 (Deposition Exhibit 3)
O.
College of LS&A Guidelines for All Terms of 1996 (Deposition Exhibit 5)
P.
College of LS&A Guidelines for All Terms of 1997 (Deposition Exhibit 7)
xi
Q
1997 SCUGA Guidelines (Deposition Exhibit 8)
R.
Defendants' Objections and Responses to Interrogatory Numbers One (1), Two (2), and Ten (10) Through Fourteen (14) of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to Defendants (Set I), dated April 7, 1998
S.
Tables for Fall 1995 (GPA2) (Deposition Exhibit 45)
T.
Tables for Fall 1995 (GPA2) (Deposition Exhibit 46)
U.
Profiles for non-minority students, Spring-Fall 1996 (Deposition Exhibit 23)
V.
Profiles for under represented minorities, Spring-Fall 1996 (Deposition Exhibit 24)
W.
Memo from Theodore Spencer re: Request for Minority Admission Policy, dated October 4, 1995 (Deposition Exhibit 52)
X.
Letter to Jennifer Gratz from University of Michigan dated April 24, 1995 (Deposition Exhibit 72)
Y.
Smith v. University of Washington Law School, No. C97-335Z (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 1999)
Volume 2: Deposition Excerpts */
Deponent Deposition date Lee Bollinger February 9, 1999 Nancy Cantor February 17, 1999 James Duderstadt January 8, 1999 Diane Gauss June 4, 1998 Brad Gratz September 16, 1998 Jennifer Gratz September 17, 1998 Patrick Hamacher September 11, 1998
*/ Some of the deposition testimony included in Volume 2 of the Appendix was designated as confidential pursuant to the Unopposed Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidentiality, entered May 28, 1998. Pursuant to � 5 of that Order, defendants waive their confidential designations for any materials included in the Appendix.
xii
David Hunter March 11, 1999 Marilyn Knepp October 2, 1998 Marilyn McKinney October 1, 1998 Robert Seltzer September 22, 1998 Theodore Spencer June 3-4, 1998 James Vanhecke July 21, 1998
Volume 3: Expert Witness Reports Expert WitnessWilliam Bowen
Albert Camarillo
Eric Foner
Patricia Gurin
Stephen Raudenbush (with Supplemental Report)
Claude Steele
Thomas Sugrue
xiii
Gratz briefs – Table of Contents
Questions? Comments? Please send e-mail to diversitymatters@umich.edu.
Site last updated: September 5, 2012. Copyright © 1997–2013 Regents of the University of Michigan.
