Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With University Presidents Lee Bollinger, Chris Garcia
Aired June 24, 2003 - 09:50 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The Supreme Court's landmark decision on affirmative action now being studied across the country to see what issues the ruling solved and what, possibly, what questions they left unanswered.
With us now, two university presidents, Chris Garcia, University of New Mexico. Lee Bollinger, Columbia University, named in the University of Michigan cases dating back to his time when he was spent -- time spent in Ann Arbor.
To both of you, doctors, gentlemen, presidents, both universities, good morning to you. Dr. Bollinger, what was your sense yesterday? Did you feel a sense of vindication when this ruling came down?
LEE BOLLINGER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well this was a great victory. This is the first really important majority decision of the Supreme Court upholding consideration of race in admissions and the court has laid out a framework now for universities across the country to follow. It really to continue doing what we've been doing for 30 years...
HEMMER: But it kind of split things Solomonic, splitting things down the middle. Why was it that Michigan felt it was necessary to use this point system that some have called transparent anyway?
BOLLINGER: It really wasn't split. I mean it's very important to realize that the fact that one particular type of program is held unconstitutional really matters very little provided there is a program that has been constitutional, which is exactly what the court held.
The university felt that because of having 25,000 applications for 5,000 spots to have a quantitative system was really helpful in ensuring fairness across the reading of applications. But the court has decided that's not constitutionally acceptable and that's fine.
Now the university, and other universities, will really amend their systems to abide by the Constitution.
HEMMER: Sort of remanded that decision back to the school to make up their own mind.
Dr. Garcia in Albuquerque, thanks for your time as well. You have a similar system, not exact. How does it differ? CHRIS GARCIA, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: We have a system that's very similar to what's been endorsed, not a system that's similar to the University of Michigan. Our law school system is one we've that had for a long time, which the court has said is exactly the kind of system that can be allowed.
We do include race or ethnicity as one factor among multiple factors when considering applicants for admission to our law school.
HEMMER: There are those who say there is a sense of relief on your campus. Why that feeling?
GARCIA: Well, I think it ranges across the spectrum, but I think relief is a good term. You know, we have not been clear really for many years, at least a generation, as to what exactly the court guidelines are going to be. We had the Bakke decision in 1978 which gave us some guidance, but there have been some lower court decisions since then that have been all over the map, some have ruled against using race in admission decisions.
So we just didn't know. We had a sword hanging over our head. And now the situation has been clarified considerably by the Supreme Court decision.
HEMMER: There are those who would counter and say we're still a bit all over the map.
Back to Dr. Bollinger. Justice Thomas yesterday said this is essentially a license to violate the Constitution for the next 25 years until greater clarification is given. More lawsuits out there?
BOLLINGER: There may well be more lawsuits. But it really is important to realize this is the very first Supreme Court precedent solidly with a majority that upholds what universities across the country have been doing in the service of trying to realize the ideals of Brown V. Board of Education in 1954.
The PAL (ph) opinion in Bakke was very important but there was not a really solid majority there and this decision provides that first solid case. So if it lasts for 25 years and then we reconsider it, that's fine. What is really needed is the clarity and we now have that.
HEMMER: Lee Bollinger, Chris Garcia, both presidents, both doctors. Thanks for sharing with us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Garcia>
Aired June 24, 2003 - 09:50 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: The Supreme Court's landmark decision on affirmative action now being studied across the country to see what issues the ruling solved and what, possibly, what questions they left unanswered.
With us now, two university presidents, Chris Garcia, University of New Mexico. Lee Bollinger, Columbia University, named in the University of Michigan cases dating back to his time when he was spent -- time spent in Ann Arbor.
To both of you, doctors, gentlemen, presidents, both universities, good morning to you. Dr. Bollinger, what was your sense yesterday? Did you feel a sense of vindication when this ruling came down?
LEE BOLLINGER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Well this was a great victory. This is the first really important majority decision of the Supreme Court upholding consideration of race in admissions and the court has laid out a framework now for universities across the country to follow. It really to continue doing what we've been doing for 30 years...
HEMMER: But it kind of split things Solomonic, splitting things down the middle. Why was it that Michigan felt it was necessary to use this point system that some have called transparent anyway?
BOLLINGER: It really wasn't split. I mean it's very important to realize that the fact that one particular type of program is held unconstitutional really matters very little provided there is a program that has been constitutional, which is exactly what the court held.
The university felt that because of having 25,000 applications for 5,000 spots to have a quantitative system was really helpful in ensuring fairness across the reading of applications. But the court has decided that's not constitutionally acceptable and that's fine.
Now the university, and other universities, will really amend their systems to abide by the Constitution.
HEMMER: Sort of remanded that decision back to the school to make up their own mind.
Dr. Garcia in Albuquerque, thanks for your time as well. You have a similar system, not exact. How does it differ? CHRIS GARCIA, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: We have a system that's very similar to what's been endorsed, not a system that's similar to the University of Michigan. Our law school system is one we've that had for a long time, which the court has said is exactly the kind of system that can be allowed.
We do include race or ethnicity as one factor among multiple factors when considering applicants for admission to our law school.
HEMMER: There are those who say there is a sense of relief on your campus. Why that feeling?
GARCIA: Well, I think it ranges across the spectrum, but I think relief is a good term. You know, we have not been clear really for many years, at least a generation, as to what exactly the court guidelines are going to be. We had the Bakke decision in 1978 which gave us some guidance, but there have been some lower court decisions since then that have been all over the map, some have ruled against using race in admission decisions.
So we just didn't know. We had a sword hanging over our head. And now the situation has been clarified considerably by the Supreme Court decision.
HEMMER: There are those who would counter and say we're still a bit all over the map.
Back to Dr. Bollinger. Justice Thomas yesterday said this is essentially a license to violate the Constitution for the next 25 years until greater clarification is given. More lawsuits out there?
BOLLINGER: There may well be more lawsuits. But it really is important to realize this is the very first Supreme Court precedent solidly with a majority that upholds what universities across the country have been doing in the service of trying to realize the ideals of Brown V. Board of Education in 1954.
The PAL (ph) opinion in Bakke was very important but there was not a really solid majority there and this decision provides that first solid case. So if it lasts for 25 years and then we reconsider it, that's fine. What is really needed is the clarity and we now have that.
HEMMER: Lee Bollinger, Chris Garcia, both presidents, both doctors. Thanks for sharing with us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Garcia>
