Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 37, Number 2. 13th March 1974

United States: When is Discrimination Simple Justice?

United States: When is Discrimination Simple Justice?

"Discrimination in reverse," some educators have called it; others say it is simple justice. Because members of minority groups in the United States have long been subjected to discriminatory practises in education on the basis of their racial origins, one effort to correct these past wrongs has been the introduction of special quota systems in the universities. But now a law student, Macro Defunis, is sueing the University of Washington Law School and claiming that his application was rejected because of his skin colour—or lack of it. Defunis is white.

It is Defunis' contention that the Law School has established a quota for the admission of minority group students and that it therefore discriminated against him and other white applicants whose academic qualifications were above those of many blacks, Indians and Filipinos who had been accepted the year before. Since the University of Washington is a state institution, Defunisinsists that he has been denied equal protection of the laws, which is a violation of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. The persistent law student has now succeded in bringing his case to the attention of the Supreme Court.

The University's position is that it has established no formal quota system but only an "affirmative action programme" designed to increase the number of minority students in the Law School. The programme is in keeping with the state's interest in achieving "legal education for a multiracial and pluralistic society". But the University's claim that no students were admitted or denied admission on the basis of race was denied in the lower state court. The state supreme court later reversed the decision, citing several US Supreme Court ruling in favour of school busing schemes and against Southern "freedom of choice" plans.

"Clearly consideration of race by school authorities does not violate the 14th Amendment where the purpose is to bring together rather than separate the races," the Washing State Supreme Court concluded. Defunis was not satisfied. No one can say what the final ruling will be. The issue is extremely complex and some lawyers feel that the important difference between the Defunis case and past cases of legally sanctioned discrimination lies in the yoluntary nature of the University of Washington plan. The Law School was under no constitutional obligation to increase the enrollment of minority students; it was, if at all, a case of de facto discrimination—a category that the law courts have never clearly defined.

The fact remains that in the state of Washington there exists a "gross underrepresentation of minorities in the legal system." The University has conscientiously tried to remedy this situation, Whether its plan is the best possible one is difficult to say. Certainly Marco Defunis does not think so. But then, ironically, the question of his own legal education is now strictly academic. While his case against the University has been making its painstaking way up through the courts, Defunis has been allowed to continue at the Law School. Right now, Defunis is completing his third and final year of study.