US: The US Supreme Court questioned yesterday whether race can be used in university admissions in the most significant test of racial preferences in 25 years.
With hundreds of demonstrators carrying placards in a protest outside the court building reminiscent of those during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor questioned a lawyer who argued that race cannot be considered at all.
"We have given recognition to race in a variety of settings," said Justice O'Connor, a key swing vote on the nine-member court, which is divided between conservative and liberal factions.
As the court considered the University of Michigan's policies, Justice O'Connor expressed concern that the programme was intended to continue indefinitely. The programmes for minorities which the court had upheld previously operated for a fixed time period, she said.
During the arguments, the court revisited an issue last addressed in 1978 with its historic Bakke v Board of Regents ruling, which struck down racial quotas but allowed race to be considered as a factor in university admissions.
The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could determine the fate of similar affirmative action programmes which help applicants from minority communities to gain admission to public and private universities throughout the US.
A number of dignitaries attended the arguments, including the civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, members of Congress, including Senator Ted Kennedy, and top Justice Department officials.
Sitting in the courtroom, as their lawyer Kirk Kolbo argued the case, were Barbara Grutter, who was denied admission to Michigan's law school, and Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, two unsuccessful white applicants to the university's undergraduate college.
Kolbo said that the admissions policies were a form of illegal discrimination and violated the constitutional equality guarantees.
Solicitor-General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, also argued that the university programme should be struck down because it was a "thinly-disguised quota" and employed "stereotypes". But Olson was forced to acknowledge that the US Naval Academy in Maryland and the US Army at West Point use racial preferences as a factor in deciding which students to admit.
Maureen Mahoney, a lawyer for the university, defended the policy, saying that the school has a compelling government interest to get a racially diverse student body. She said that the programme was "an attempt to take race into account in a modest, limited fashion".
Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch opponent of affirmative action programmes, was the judge who appeared most hostile. "Some applicants are given a preference because of their race," he said. "Once you use the term 'critical mass', you are into quota land."
In the undergraduate case, black, Hispanic and Native American applicants get 20 extra points out of a possible 150 points under a selection index which considers academic background, test scores and other factors, including race.
In the law school case, the admissions process does not involve a points system, but the university seeks the enrolment of a "critical mass" of minority students. This has ranged between 10 and 17 per cent of each class.
Justice John Paul Stevens asked whether the programme might end up generating racial hostility. Ms Mahoney replied that the admissions policy was aimed at minimising resentment and said that there was overwhelming support for it from students. - (Reuters)