APAP on the Side of Landmark Supreme Court Decision

By James F. Cawley, MPH, PA-C
APAP President

As the organization representing PA educators, APAP has been following the rulings handed down recently by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a long-anticipated decision, the court ruled on affirmative action admissions policies practiced at the University of Michigan’s law school and undergraduate programs.

As you may recall, in January APAP responded to the request of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to formally express support for the University of Michigan’s position. By indicating its endorsement of the AAMC’s friend-of-the-court brief, APAP became one of a large group of other health and medical organizations that affirmed a policy of diversity in admissions at the University of Michigan. On April 6, before the rulings were handed down, the Washington Post reported that more than 300 organizations — including major corporations, unions, and other university and student groups — had entered pleas on behalf of diversity and appealed to the court not to bar all consideration of race in recruiting for such institutions.

The Supreme Court rulings in the affirmative action cases came down on June 23 with five justices assenting and four dissenting. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority and, as reported in the Washington Post, stated in part that, “Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints. A university’s admissions program must remain flexible enough,” O’Connor continued, “to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature.” The policies in place at the University of Michigan’s law school accomplished this, the court said; the university’s undergraduate program did not.

A plethora of print editorials and public commentaries followed the rulings. One Washington Post columnist observed that “Justices struck down number-based scorecard programs, in which every minority applicant automatically received bonus points” and maintained that “it was no accident that the court came down roughly in line with public opinion,” noting the scores of friend-of-the-court briefs filed “in support of affirmative action by the pillars of the American mainstream.”

PA educators are aware that, although the rulings are expected to directly address admissions at public, tax-supported institutions, by extension they could affect all institutions of higher education. The University of Michigan law school’s admissions policies, interpreted and accepted by the courts, may serve as affirmation for the legality of admissions policies used by many educational institutions, including those that sponsor PA educational programs.

James O. Freedman, a former president of Dartmouth and former dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in The New York Times on this aspect of the rulings, saying “This is what I think universities have been craving: a road map. This legitimates legally what we all thought was educationally appropriate.”

Lee C. Bollinger, currently president of Columbia University and formerly president of the University of Michigan, remarked in the Washington Post:

While acknowledging the equally strong commentaries that flooded the media expressing dissatisfaction with the court’s decision, APAP recognizes that the 2003 Supreme Court decision on affirmative action is a landmark ruling that will have a profound impact on higher education in the United States for the near future. In backing the AAMC’s brief, the association emphasized the particular relevance of this issue for PA educators who hope to better balance the composition of the country’s health care workforce. Affirmative action is one way in which medical education programs can help achieve the diversity in the health care workforce that will more closely resemble the profile of American society. APAP remains proud to be among the groups in the health professions taking a stand on this issue of vital social and educational public policy.

Main