Acting affirmatively: Tufts continues to value diversity since Michigan decision

College admissions offices are typically less hectic during the summer months. But this year was different. When a monumentally important decision came down from the Supreme Court concerning the ever-controversial topic of affirmative action, the rules for college admissions were indelibly changed.

More than a year after two white students brought cases against the University of Michigan claiming that they were discriminated against in the admissions process, the Supreme Court came to a decision which in effect created guidelines for universities and colleges around the country.

In the decision, the Supreme Court struck down Michigan's system of using a 150-point scale to evaluate students. Under the system, certain minorities were awarded 20 points, but only up to five points for recognition for leadership and service.

However, in a separate ruling about admissions to the university's law school, the court stated that universities may still consider race as one of many factors in their admissions processes provided that it is in the context of an individualized consideration of all applicants, and so long as race is not the only factor.

According to a legal analysis of the decisions by the attorneys behind Harvard University's Civil Rights Project, the Court's opinions in these cases confirms that race may be used as one of many factors but policies which "automatically and inflexibly assign benefits on the basis of race" such as the point system will no longer be acceptable. "Universities that employ systems which lack sufficient individualized review will need to re-examine their current admissions policies to determine whether their policies require adjustment or revision in light of the Court's decision," according to the project's website.

According to the University of Michigan's news service, the school has implemented new policies in the last month in which no points are issued and academic achievement, such as grades and test scores, as well as an essay, are given more weight than race or ethnicity.

One question on the minds of many at the top tier private college and universities around the country is how this federal decision will affect those not under public regulation.

President Bacow applauded the Supreme Court's decision in an interview with the national media.

"I am pleased that the Court has now created a roadmap that will enable Tufts University and other schools across the country to continue to enroll students who enrich the educational environment for all students on campus," Bacow told E-News, the University's news service. "Tufts values diversity -- in every dimension -- as a critical element in adequately preparing students for a rapidly changing world."

Though Michigan is a public university, the Court's decision has had an impact on private colleges and universities, in part because many try to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.

And because Title VI of the Civil Rights Act forbids institutions receiving federal funding to engage in racial discrimination, the decision could bear on private universities, which often receive federal funds for tuition and research.

For many institutions, the court's decision provides national guidelines so that administrators do not need to independently decide what is and what is not discriminatory.

According to Bacow, Tufts has always been a strong supporter of affirmative action. But the University has not had to significantly alter any policies since the Michigan decision.

Allan Clemow, the Director of Undergraduate Admissions, says that Tufts "has not and does not use a point system in the evaluation and consideration of students to Tufts." The admissions process to the College of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering involves a "detailed reading and evaluation of all of the materials submitted for a candidate followed by a committee process where decisions are made."

Tufts has always used a system much like that of Michigan's law school in which each applicant is considered on an individual basis. "We consider more than a limited number of objective characteristics when choosing who to admit to Tufts," Clemow said. "We plan to continue to assess candidates in a holistic way, as we have always done."

Earlier this year, Tufts joined other private and public colleges as well as military and corporate leaders in supporting an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Court.

The brief, according to Clemow, stressed the "importance of diversity in ensuring the excellence and effectiveness of higher education in a complex, interdependent world."

In an e-mail to the Tufts community soon after the Michigan decision, Bacow explained the goals of the University's admission process. "We consider more than a limited range of objective characteristics in deciding whom to admit to Tufts," he wrote. "We look for students who are interested in different subjects, extracurricular activities, and careers. We seek to admit a class that provides each student with access to an extraordinarily interesting, diverse and distinctive set of friends and classmates. This diversity contributes to an exceptional education."

Clemow agrees: "Our goal continues to be the creation of entering classes that provide students with access to the most interesting, diverse, and distinctive friends and roommates with whom they can share the special opportunities of the educational experience at the University."

Tufts is among the many other universities who consider the Michigan decision a victory, allowing the University to continue to admit a diverse student body, by following guidelines set by the government, and by which avoiding the same kind of claims of discrimination brought against Michigan.

"We believe the Court's decision will enable Tufts and other schools across the country to continue to enroll students who improve the quality of education because of their experience together on campus," Clemow said.