Race ruling slams UGA
The University of Georgia's race-conscious admissions program is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Monday.
In a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Avant Edenfield of Savannah rejected UGA's arguments that the promotion of diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest.
"To base racial preferences upon an amorphous, unquantifiable and temporarily unlimited goal is to engage in naked racial balancing," Edenfield wrote.
The judge ruled in favor of three white women denied admission to UGA in 1999. He also ordered the university to offer the women admission and to compensate them for having to pay more money to attend other schools.
UGA President Michael Adams called Edenfield's ruling "another step" in the legal process.
"We respect the court and we want UGA admissions to comply with federal law," he said. "We also want to be as aggressive as possible within the law in attracting people of all races and backgrounds."
Adams said he needs to consult with legal counsel before deciding whether to appeal the ruling and determine what impact it will have on admissions policies for future classes.
UGA has admitted about 90 percent of its students strictly on academic performance. The rest were accepted on a combination of up to 12 characteristics, including race and gender.
The three white female plaintiffs --- Jennifer Johnson, Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer --- would have been considered for admission had they been minority male applicants, Edenfield noted.
UGA no longer gives preferences to male applicants. But in September, Adams said the school will continue to use race-based preferences so UGA will be accessible and representative of the total state population.
The university has modeled its admissions program on the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, in which the late Justice Lewis Powell wrote that diversity in higher education is a compelling state interest.
But Edenfield noted that Powell said this was necessary to overcome the lingering effects of past discrimination, and UGA is not making such an argument. UGA's defense, Edenfield said, is at odds with more recent Supreme Court decisions and involves unconstitutional racial stereotyping.