The plaintiffs in a case opposing the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policies petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to hear their argument, along with a similar case against the UM Law School, before another class of freshmen are admitted under affirmative action rules they deem unconstitutional.
While they may have differing opinions regarding the case, many UW System officials believe any U.S. Supreme Court ruling will affect the admissions process at UW-Madison.
\Our policies and rules are very close to the University of Michigan's,"" said Robert Seltzer, director of admissions at UW-Madison. ""We are similar enough that it will have an impact.""
Currently, while Wisconsin statute 36.12 claims, ""No student may be denied admission to ... the system or its institutions because of the student's race, color ... [or] ancestry,"" race is a factor in admissions' policies.
""Race is one factor, but there are about 20 different factors, and there is no one particular criterion that says that a student is in or out,"" Seltzer said. ""What we mainly see is what is on the student's academic transcript, and that is what is important.""
In July, the Center for Equal Opportunity, which backs the plaintiffs in both UM cases, fought UW-Madison all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to obtain its admissions data, which the court made available to the Center.
Some see that as the possible start of a similar case against UW-Madison.
""When it comes to the issue of race [in admissions], the fundamental element is secrecy. That's why nothing is in writing [about] how it works. Even the regents don't know, and if the data is known, then a race-based admissions case could be likely,"" UW Board of Regents member Fred Mohs, said.
Mohs said the nationally controlling case concerning race in admissions is the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Ruled in 1978, it allows schools to use race and ethnicity when determining admission. Wisconsin law considers such practices illegal.
""I think the [Wisconsin] legislature has spoken, and that is it, period,"" Mohs said. ""The controlling case was made long before they made their ruling. They had their chance to carve out their own policy and they didn't.""
Seltzer said the issue of race in admissions is basically a non-issue.
""The Center is clearly opposed to affirmative action and they want the data to make a case, and we claim that race is a factor, but one of many factors, really it's just a smoke screen,"" he said.
While the benefits of diversity on campus are not in question, the legal methods of achieving this are, Guy Gottschalk, president of the UW System Board of Regents said, suggesting some alternatives.
""Pre-college programs and increasing programs in K-12 schools can encourage minorities to apply, compete and be successful, which is the ultimate goal,"" he said. ""You can admit all the people in the world, but if you can't help them be successful, what's the point?""
Mohs said the university's focus should be on programs like Plan 2008, which is not only legal, but can increase diversity by tapping into school systems that have not historically contributed to the campus.
Seltzer said those programs are worthwhile, none are as successful as using race in admissions.
""If the goal is to lead society into the future, a future that will be a diverse and equal society, then using race in admissions is the quickest and clearly best way to do that,"" Seltzer said.
