Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Plaintiff in Michigan Case Jennifer Gratz

Aired June 24, 2003 - 08:02   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, ANCHOR: The headline yesterday about this time was the decision on affirmative action by the Supreme Court, now being called a landmark ruling. Reaction continues to come in from across the country.
Jennifer Gratz was plaintiff in one case, Terence Pell, the president for the Center of Individual Rights was Gratz's attorney. They are both with us here on AMERICAN MORNING.

Nice to see both of you. You were in California yesterday.

JENNIFER GRATZ, PLAINTIFF IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: Yes, I was.

HEMMER: When the decision came down, your reaction was what, Jennifer?

GRATZ: Well, my initial reaction, which I predicted back in April, was that was I was very much overwhelmed and I cried.

After sitting back and thinking about the decision I was happy that the Supreme Court had said that the University of Michigan's undergraduate policy, a policy that gave minority students points that were equivalent to one letter grade, is unconstitutional and is wrong.

I think it's unfortunate that in the law school case the Supreme Court did not realize that that preference given in law school is just as unfair.

HEMMER: Do you see it as a split decision and something that will afford more confusion for colleges across the country or do you think things were truly clarified yesterday?

TERENCE PELL, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: No. I think the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify...

HEMMER: How so?

PELL: ... a very confusing area of the law.

It's a split decision. The court left a window open for a little bit of consideration of race, but they attached a lot of conditions to it. And so I think although the court upheld the law school system, at the end of day that's going to be cold comfort for schools. The practical reality of these systems is that they very quickly become mechanical and bureaucratic, just like the undergraduate system. HEMMER: Well, the court said yesterday -- they essentially said that it's a good thing to have a diverse student population on every campus across the country. Because it not only helps the campus, but also helps the country. What's wrong with that?

PELL: Nothing's wrong with that. Everybody agrees diversity is important. That's not really the issue in this case. The issue in this case is the use of separate, lower admission standards for minorities in order to achieve diversity.

The fact is there are hundreds of schools in five states that have done away with all race preferences and they've figured out how to achieve diversity without discrimination.

HEMMER: Jennifer, if you were writing the rules how would you change it to be fair?

GRATZ: I don't think race would be a factor. I think that, in this country, we have a Constitution that says that people deserve to be treated equally when it comes to race. And I think that the University of Michigan's policy of giving a preference based on skin color is wrong and is unfair.

HEMMER: Do you believe this is something that we're going to see in a revisited case in years to come?

PELL: Well, it's up to the schools. If the schools continue to tinker with race, they're going to run into further litigation.

They're also going to run into a solid wall of public opposition. Nine out of 10 Americans think race shouldn't even be a factor in the admissions or employment. So I think schools faced, with public opposition and faced with continued litigation, will hopefully choose to do the right thing here, which is judge applicants on the basis of their achievements, rather than their skin color.

HEMMER: Terry, what I want to know from you quickly here: essentially the court remanded it back to the schools and said, "It's OK to proceed in this direction, but just do it in a different way. Don't do it in points or do it in a way that some suggest is such an obvious way to consider race in application."

Your solution, then, is what?

PELL: Don't look at race at all. If you want to get a diverse student body, look for disadvantaged students from all racial groups. It doesn't make any sense to give a preference to African-Americans and Hispanics and not give the same preference to disadvantaged students from every other racial group. Schools that do that honestly, like schools in California and Texas and elsewhere, will have diversity without discrimination and that's the way to go.

HEMMER: Terry Pell, Jennifer Gratz, thanks for coming in today on AMERICAN MORNING. Appreciate it.

PELL: Thanks. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired June 24, 2003 - 08:02   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, ANCHOR: The headline yesterday about this time was the decision on affirmative action by the Supreme Court, now being called a landmark ruling. Reaction continues to come in from across the country.
Jennifer Gratz was plaintiff in one case, Terence Pell, the president for the Center of Individual Rights was Gratz's attorney. They are both with us here on AMERICAN MORNING.

Nice to see both of you. You were in California yesterday.

JENNIFER GRATZ, PLAINTIFF IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASE: Yes, I was.

HEMMER: When the decision came down, your reaction was what, Jennifer?

GRATZ: Well, my initial reaction, which I predicted back in April, was that was I was very much overwhelmed and I cried.

After sitting back and thinking about the decision I was happy that the Supreme Court had said that the University of Michigan's undergraduate policy, a policy that gave minority students points that were equivalent to one letter grade, is unconstitutional and is wrong.

I think it's unfortunate that in the law school case the Supreme Court did not realize that that preference given in law school is just as unfair.

HEMMER: Do you see it as a split decision and something that will afford more confusion for colleges across the country or do you think things were truly clarified yesterday?

TERENCE PELL, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: No. I think the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify...

HEMMER: How so?

PELL: ... a very confusing area of the law.

It's a split decision. The court left a window open for a little bit of consideration of race, but they attached a lot of conditions to it. And so I think although the court upheld the law school system, at the end of day that's going to be cold comfort for schools. The practical reality of these systems is that they very quickly become mechanical and bureaucratic, just like the undergraduate system. HEMMER: Well, the court said yesterday -- they essentially said that it's a good thing to have a diverse student population on every campus across the country. Because it not only helps the campus, but also helps the country. What's wrong with that?

PELL: Nothing's wrong with that. Everybody agrees diversity is important. That's not really the issue in this case. The issue in this case is the use of separate, lower admission standards for minorities in order to achieve diversity.

The fact is there are hundreds of schools in five states that have done away with all race preferences and they've figured out how to achieve diversity without discrimination.

HEMMER: Jennifer, if you were writing the rules how would you change it to be fair?

GRATZ: I don't think race would be a factor. I think that, in this country, we have a Constitution that says that people deserve to be treated equally when it comes to race. And I think that the University of Michigan's policy of giving a preference based on skin color is wrong and is unfair.

HEMMER: Do you believe this is something that we're going to see in a revisited case in years to come?

PELL: Well, it's up to the schools. If the schools continue to tinker with race, they're going to run into further litigation.

They're also going to run into a solid wall of public opposition. Nine out of 10 Americans think race shouldn't even be a factor in the admissions or employment. So I think schools faced, with public opposition and faced with continued litigation, will hopefully choose to do the right thing here, which is judge applicants on the basis of their achievements, rather than their skin color.

HEMMER: Terry, what I want to know from you quickly here: essentially the court remanded it back to the schools and said, "It's OK to proceed in this direction, but just do it in a different way. Don't do it in points or do it in a way that some suggest is such an obvious way to consider race in application."

Your solution, then, is what?

PELL: Don't look at race at all. If you want to get a diverse student body, look for disadvantaged students from all racial groups. It doesn't make any sense to give a preference to African-Americans and Hispanics and not give the same preference to disadvantaged students from every other racial group. Schools that do that honestly, like schools in California and Texas and elsewhere, will have diversity without discrimination and that's the way to go.

HEMMER: Terry Pell, Jennifer Gratz, thanks for coming in today on AMERICAN MORNING. Appreciate it.

PELL: Thanks. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com