Hello! You are part of a community of millions who seek out Democracy Now! each month for ad-free daily news you can trust. Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for our in-depth stories that expose corporate and government abuses of power and lift up the voices of ordinary people working to make change in extraordinary times. We produce all of this news at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation. We do this without ads, government funding or corporate sponsorship. How? This model of news depends on support from viewers and listeners like you. Today, less than 1% of our visitors support Democracy Now! with a donation each year. If even 3% of our website visitors donated just $10 per month, we could cover our basic operating expenses for a year. Pretty amazing right? If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make a monthly contribution.

Your Donation: $
Wednesday, April 2, 2003 FULL SHOW | HEADLINES | NEXT: An Embedded Reporter Comes Home After a Stint in Iraq
2003-04-02

Yesterday the Supreme Court Heard Opening Arguments in Two Landmark Cases That May Decide the Future of Affirmative Action: We’ll Have Our Own Debate Today

Guests

Kirk Kolbo, lead counsel for the Center for Individual Rights who argued against affirmative action in front of the Supreme Court yesterday.

Miranda Massie, lead attorney for the student defenders in the University of Michigan Law School Case.

Agnes Aleobua, University of Michigan student.

DONATE →
This is viewer supported news

With thousands of protesters outside, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments on two landmark cases that will likely decide the future of affirmative action.

The stakes are high. The court could prohibit affirmative action programs at all universities, public and private, across the country. The court could allow the programs to continue. Or, the court could pronounce new standards for evaluating programs on a case by case basis.

The New York Times reports it appears based on yesterday’s proceedings that affirmative action will survive its most important test in 25 years.

Most notably, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who is widely viewed as holding the likely swing vote in the decision, raised a series of skeptical questions to the lawyers arguing against affirmative action.

The Court is hearing a pair of cases involving the admissions policy of the University of Michigan. The case names are Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.

Grutter is a challenge to the university’s law school admissions program, which gives African-American, Latino and Native American applicants a loosely defined special consideration to ensure that there is a "critical mass" of such students in each new class.

Gratz is a challenge to the university’s undergraduate admissions policy, which tries to ensure a "critical mass" of African-American, Latino and Native American enrollments by giving such applicants an automatic 20-point bonus on the school’s 150-point "selection index."

Let’s begin by hearing some of yesterday’s arguments. This is an excerpt of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy quizzing Kirk O. Kolbo, the attorney for the plaintiffs in Grutter v. Bollinger, which challenges the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action program.


Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.