As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule in the University of Michigan affirmative action case, journalists are considering the impact the decision will have on the future of the profession.
The University counts the race of applicants when selecting its undergraduate and law school students. By the end of the month, the Supreme Court is likely to decide whether that kind of counting is constitutional.
The court could rule in favor of Michigan’s mathematical approach to diversity; it could prescribe how race should be considered in admissions, or the justices could rule the consideration of race entirely unconstitutional.
Whatever they decide, the ruling could affect the number of students of color that are admitted to colleges, and subsequently, the number that choose journalism as a career. Journalism educators and industry leaders who have struggled to invite diversity into their classrooms and newsrooms worry the decision could mean a setback.
“Diversity is crucial to our business and to journalism education,” says Loren Ghiglione, dean at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. “We can’t return to an era of essentially all-white students, all-white faculties, and all-white newsrooms.”
The University of Michigan’s affirmative action model guards against choosing a student body that is all white. And according to University officials, the model gives all students a better education while students of color have a better chance of being admitted. But, two applicants say they didn’t get in because of their color — they’re both white. Now, the Supreme Court has to decide what’s legal.
Media need diversity
Many universities and corporations, including about 20 media companies, have filed amicus briefs supporting the University of Michigan. No media companies have filed opposing briefs.
Greg Schmidt, vice president at LIN Television, says his company filed because LIN wants its news stations to reach viewers, and a diverse staff extends that reach.
“We need the diversity of our workforce to reflect our communities,” says Schmidt. “Everybody [including the university] needs to help at each stage.”
LIN’s leaders don’t often become involved in legal cases, according to Schmidt, but the potential long-term impact of this decision forced their hand.
A similar sense of urgency pushed Emmis Broadcasting’s leaders. CEO Jeff Smulyan says his company feels strongly about the principles involved in the Michigan case. He sees diversity in college classrooms as essential to producing the hiring pool from which his managers choose.
Too much credit for color?
Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz, the students who sued the University of Michigan, contend that the admissions process gives minorities too much credit for color. African-American, Hispanic, and Native American applicants can all earn 20 points on the basis of race in a 150-point system used for admissions. A look at studies from ASNE and RTNDA shows that these are precisely the groups that are underrepresented in today’s newsrooms.
While many support the importance of diversity, there is less support for the point system. Strong supporters of Grutter and Gratz — such as the State of Florida and Governor Jeb Bush, the United States Government, the Anti-Defamation League, the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), and Ward Connerly of California — all challenge admission by the numbers.
Even corporate leaders at LIN say they don’t agree with every detail of the point system, but they feel the University deserves a lot of latitude. They say they stand with Michigan because they want to improve diversity in the newsroom, and build it to a level that has so far eluded print and electronic media.
According to one amicus brief filed by media companies, “A diverse pool of qualified college graduates ready to enter the industry is a necessary and important step toward increased minority participation.”
If Michigan wins, campuses can assign points for ethnicity or gender or other defined criteria. But if Michigan loses, the ruling could chill the environment for diversity, according to Caesar Andrews, editor of Gannett News Service, who is also a member of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Andrews says that perhaps more important than what the justices say will be the tone and tenor of their remarks. “The Supreme Court’s decision goes beyond the legal factors,” he says. “The court has a social role, a cultural role and effect.”
People hostile to affirmative action may see a vote against Michigan as license to stop diversity efforts or to scale back. But for those in the academy and the industry who value diversity, according to Andrews, there shouldn’t be any uncertainty.
“Some of the ‘how’ may have to change, but the ‘what’ of diversity should continue,” he says.
