From the July 10, 1996 Daily Report Card:
GP>          =====  FROM COURTHOUSE TO SCHOOLHOUSE  =====
GP>*4   SUPREME COURT'S REQUIEM FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?:  NO ACTION
GP>     The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to hear the U of
GP>Texas affirmative action case, a decision that left intact the
GP>5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that does not allow race
GP>to be a factor in admission decisions (Jackson, THE DALLAS
GP>MORNING NEWS, 7/2).  Interpretation of the high court's move not
GP>to hear the case, Hopwood vs. Texas, varied among advocates and
GP>opponents of affirmative action.
GP>     "The handwriting on the wall is becoming clearer and
GP>clearer," said Theodore Olson, the lawyer who represented white
GP>students denied admission to the U of Texas law school.  However,
GP>Penda Hair, director of the Washington office of the NACP Legal
GP>Defense and Educational Fund dismisses Olson's interpretation.
GP>"It certainly seems clear that this is a procedural denial," she
GP>said.  She claims that remarks made in a separate statement by
GP>Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter signal that the
GP>court is "withholding judgement of the ultimate fate of college
GP>affirmative action," reports the paper.
GP>     Ginsburg and Souter wrote that the question of whether a
GP>college can "use race or national origin as a factor in its
GP>admissions process is an issue of great national importance."
GP>They also noted that the U of Texas is no longer using its
GP>controversial admissions process that used separate panels for
GP>judging white and blacks.  They added:  "Accordingly, we must
GP>await a final judgment on a program genuinely in controversy
GP>before addressing the important question raised in this
GP>petition."
GP>     "At the national level, we have kind of a standoff,"
GP>remarked Jamin Raskin, an American U law professor.  "But within
GP>the 5th Circuit, the [Texas] decision becomes law."  The 5th
GP>Circuit Court of Appeals' decision holds for Texas, La. and Miss.
GP>     However, the paper observes that "given the recent history,
GP>analysts said affirmative action supporters cannot take comfort
GP>from the high court's refusal to take the Texas case."  Paul
GP>Rothstein, a Georgetown U law professor, observed that the high
GP>court's decision means the justices are willing to "let it
GP>percolate now in the lower courts."  Other analysts agree that
GP>often the Supreme Court will wait for "conflicting opinions in
GP>the lower courts before deciding to tackle a major issue," writes
GP>the NEWS.
GP>     Texas Attorney General Dan Morales said his office "will
GP>provide our state's universities with legal guidance in regard to
GP>the effect of this decision on admissions policies."
GP>     Stephanie McDonald, the immediate past president of the
GP>Thurgood Marshall Legal Society, an organization of black
GP>students at the U of Texas law school, said the ruling means that
GP>more minority students "will start going out-of-state" for higher
GP>education opportunities (Moreno, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, 7/3).
GP>     And from syndicated columnist William Rasberry:  "Maybe the
GP>high court is, as Ginsburg hinted, waiting for a clearer case.
GP>Or maybe the justices would simply rather postpone
GP>reconsideration of what may be the most racially divisive issue
GP>in American politics:  To what extent (if at all) should race be
GP>a factor in decisions of equity?" (WASH POST, 7/5)
 * SLMR 2.1a *
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------