WASHINGTON (NNPA) �Affirmative action supporters are cheering a May 14 decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upholds the University of Michigan law school�s use of race in its admissions process but have reservations about how the case will be ultimately interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It�s a spectacular victory that affirms everything we�ve been saying. It sends the message that the value of having a diverse student body is a compelling interest in this country," said John Payton, the lead attorney representing the University of Michigan in Grutter v. Bollinger. "We think we have the best record that has ever been put together to show why diversity is a compelling interest and if the Supreme Court wants to hear this, I look forward to presenting the arguments to the Supreme Court."

The 6th Appeals Court ruling says the Michigan law school policy, which gives special consideration to Blacks and other groups that have been "historically discriminated against," complies with the 1978 Supreme Court opinion in University of California Regents v. Bakke allowing race to be used as a "plus" factor in admitting students to public universities.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs immediately announced an appeal of the decision, which was split 5-4.
"We think today�s decision confirms that the lower courts are very sharply divided on this important issue and we fully intend to take it next to the Supreme Court where we think this issue will have to be resolved," said Kirk Kolbo, who represents Barbara Grutter, a White woman who filed the suit in 1997 after her application to law school was rejected.

Jonathan Alger, assistant general counsel at the University of Michigan, which has spent $8.4 million defending the school�s admissions policies, said, "We�re thrilled that the court recognizes that diversity brings educational benefits for all students, majority and minority alike."

In its ruling, the Appeals Court reversed a lower federal court ruling that had contended the law school�s affirmative action program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"The Law School drafted its admissions policy to comply with the Supreme Court�s opinion in Bakke," states the opinion written by Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. "The record indicates that the Law School intends to consider race and ethnicity to achieve a diverse and robust student body only until it becomes possible to enroll a �critical mass� of under-represented minority students through race-neutral means. � For the forgoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court and vacate its injunction prohibiting the Law School from considering race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions."

"This is a victory. It�s a good one. But it�s definitely to be continued," says Travis Townsend, a third-year law student, who is president of the Black Law Students Alliance at Michigan. "It�s going to eventually hit the Supreme Court, and so, we�re not totally just bouncing and jumping for joy."

"We as a nation are at the crossroad of continued progress in the area of civil rights," says Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. "Just as the Jim Crow laws hastened an era of state sanctioned segregation, today�s assault on affirmative action could harken a period of unofficial de facto segregation."