Taken from a conversation of THE BLACK COLLEGIAN with Attorney David W. DeBruin, counsel of Record for the amici curiae brief filed on behalf of 65 leading businesses on February 18, 2003, in the University of Michigan case before the Supreme Court

The Harvard Plan had no racial quota, but it allowed the consider ation of race (along with many other characteristics) as a "plus factor" in admissions. Diversity includes many things, race being only one of them, that make a person unique and add to the richness of the school. The Law School admissions program at Michigan was like the Harvard Plan. It did not award any particular points or set aside particular slots for minority candidates; it simply considered race, and other forms of diversity, as a plus.

The undergraduate program was more complicated. In part, it involved awarding points to applicants on the basis of their racial background. And so an issue in both cases was whether each program was sufficiently "narrowly tailored" to be constitutional.

Focus on diversity itself, not method

In the companies' briefs, we did not address the mechanics of the Law School or undergraduate admissions programs. The companies simply argued that diversity is extremely important and that the State therefore has a compelling interest in considering race.

In the District Court, one judge struck down the Law School admissions program, while a different judge upheld the undergraduate admissions program. Both cases then went to the Court of Appeals, and eventually to the Supreme Court. In the Court of Appeals, more companies joined our brief—I believe a total of 32; that number grew to 65 by the time the cases reached the Supreme Court. I believe these companies together have far more than a trillion dollars in revenues, and they strongly supported the position that it is important to them—and to the country—for there to be diversity in undergraduate and graduate enrollment.

A perception change: Affirmative Action to diversity?

Although I think some people use the terms "Affirmative Action" and "diversity" interchangeably, I believe that "Affirmative Action" has a more strictly racial focus; it refers to taking affirmative steps to take race into account to correct a previous imbalance. In the Bakke decision, Justice Powell emphasized that racial diversity alone could not be the sole or ultimate factor in the decision-making process. Rather, the compelling interest in the university setting was having students who were diverse in the broadest sense of the word, so that the student body included richness beyond those who simply had the best test scores or the best GPA in high school. Obviously, one element of that richness is the inclusion of people from diverse racial backgrounds. Another is the inclusion of people from diverse economic backgrounds, and of people with diverse talents in music and athletics. This is what both the Bakke and the Michigan cases came to emphasize: the compelling interest of government in the broader concept of diversity. But clearly, racial diversity is an extremely important component of that broader concept of diversity.

Message to minority students

I do not believe the Michigan case was a message for minority students alone. I believe there is a message for everyone in the decision. This is my personal view, not that of the companies I represented in the amici brief. I believe the case actually offers two different messages. One, the case recognizes just how important diversity, and particularly racial diversity, is in our society. It is recognition of how essential it is that every group in America, including every racial group, be able to participate in our best schools and colleges. But two, the Supreme Court clearly is uncomfortable with the notion of considering race in admissions. The Court talked about hoping that in 25 years consideration of race would no longer be necessary. There is recognition in some of the opinions of the Court that these steps taken by the University of Michigan hardly address the real underlying problem—that the small number of students admitted under these plans leaves many others who are still excluded. Thus, if we truly want to achieve diversity, if we truly want our society to be as diverse as our population, we must do more than this. We need to address the underlying reason why test scores are different, why grades are different. I believe that the opinions of the Court recognize the importance of what the University of Michigan is doing, but they also offer a message that long-term, different solutions must ultimately be found.

Finally

There were many amici briefs in this case. Many arguments were made. This is one of the most important and difficult legal issues of our time. There are strong arguments on both sides. We want a society where the State does not make decisions based on race. But by the same token we need inclusion in our universities. The challenge for everyone is to continue to address the underlying problems so that ultimately we may achieve diversity without making conscious efforts to do so.

David W. DeBruin, Esq.
Jenner & Block, LLC, Washington, D.C. 20005

Given the importance of the Michigan diversity ruling of the Supreme Court, THE BLACK COLLEGIAN asked several corporations to comment on their reasons for supporting diversity at the University of Michigan and , by extension, all universities. We also asked CEOs for their particular comments on diversity for our readers. Those comments follow.

Deloitte

Q. Why did Deloitte file a "friend of the court" brief supporting the University of Michigan Law School?
A. A Deloitte spokesperson said, "We chose to participate in this brief because we believe it is essential to our success to be able to hire individuals of all backgrounds who have been educated in a diverse environment. Not only is diversity what our clients expect, it is how we ensure that we have the best and brightest people in our firm to serve these clients."

Ernst & Young

Q. Why did Ernst & Young file its "Friend of the Court" brief supporting the University of Michigan Law School?
A. Maintaining an inclusive culture at Ernst & Young is critical to our success—our competitive advantage highly depends upon our ability to use the differences of our people to create diversity of thought. We believe that it was critical for us to take a stance with respect to diversity, and that's why we decided to file an amicus brief. Filing the brief helped us to put a stake in the ground and provide more than just lip service regarding the firm's commitment. It communicated our message loud and clear.

E&Y, along with the other companies that filed briefs, supports exactly what the Supreme Court held—that Affirmative Action is essential for businesses to ensure a stream of good, qualified candidates for their future workforces. Although technically E&Y and the other companies that filed briefs supported the position of the Law School claiming that affirmative action is necessary, that brief did not distinguish the position of the Law School and that of the under-graduate school. Rather we supported inclusiveness within the learning environment in general.

Q. Was the ruling particularly important for Ernst & Young?
A. This ruling was very important to us, as it will help with our overall goal to foster an inclusive work environment. We recruit from campuses with diversity in mind, and we will continue to do so, but the ruling should help us to expand some of our long-standing initiatives, such as our support of the National Association of Black Accountants' Accounting Career Awareness Program [ACAP]. These programs, which we sponsor at the University of Arkansas, Lehigh University, Texas A&M University, and other schools, encourage minorities to pursue careers in business or accounting and go beyond flat-out advising to partnering with institutions and students to help them reach their goals. We seek to explore similar relationships with other universities and expect that they will be much more receptive as a result of this ruling.

Q. Did the ruling affect the undergraduate recruiting strategy of Ernst & Young?
A. We will continue to recruit at universities that have diverse students, first and foremost, but also diverse faculty. Perhaps there will also be opportunities with institutions that up until now have not treated diversity as an imperative, as important to corporate America.

Rick Bobrow, CEO, and Allen Boston, National Director of Minority Recruitment, Ernst & Young

We will continue the dialogue we have always had with the deans and accounting chairs about recruiting initiatives that are important to us. Clearly one of those matters is providing a diverse environment for us to recruit from. In addition to the ACAP and other residency programs, we will also keep up our scholarship contributions to those universities, as that's become a critical recruiting tool. Since 1997 we have provided over $3.5 million dollars from the E&Y Foundation to fund minority scholarships and ACAP or residency programs. Outside of our matching gifts campaign, this is the single largest funding program within the E&Y Foundation, and is part of our overall business strategy to drive recruitment.

There are tremendous opportunities in corporate America for individuals, provided that they have teaming and leadership skills. There is also an expectation that you should be able to function, and function well, in an inclusive environment. We need skills around technical proficiency and flexibility, but being able to work in an inclusive environment is also an essential skill. I know there is some concern among students that an admissions policy geared to diversity or inclusiveness might be interpreted as that you don't belong, or are less qualified. Personally, I wouldn't be too concerned. This is far beyond the truth if a university's admissions policy is based on fairness and equity. In my experience, universities look for the most promising students with an eye toward ensuring that its student body is diverse enough to foster an enhanced learning experience.

Allen Boston, National Director of Minority Recruitment
Ernst & Young

A. Diversity improves everyone's educational experience and prepares people to work more effectively in a diverse setting and with diverse groups. It helps them to succeed. The students of today are this country's corporate and community leaders of the next half-century, and it is essential that they be educated in an environment where they are exposed to diverse people, ideas, perspectives, and interactions. Today's global marketplace and the increasing diversity in the American population demand the cross-cultural experience and understanding gained from such an education.

Rick Bobrow, CEO, Ernst & Young

Lockheed Martin

Q. Why did Lockheed Martin Corporation file its "Friend of the Court" brief supporting the University of Michigan Law School?
A. Lockheed Martin hires qualified candidates from excellent institutions of higher education. In today's global marketplace, it is essential to our success to be able to employ individuals that reflect the diversity of the world in which we do business. To achieve this goal, it is vital for educational institutions to provide a learning environment that mirrors the diversity of our population.

We welcome the best people and value the variety of perspectives that diverse individuals bring in helping to solve some of the world's most challenging problems.

Q. What will Lockheed Martin do to support diversity at the undergraduate level?
A. Lockheed Martin provides strong financial and outreach support to help develop the diverse work-force of the future. The corporation contributed $1.5 million to minority and women engineering education programs in 2003. This includes close support to NACME, the Hispanic College Fund, INROADS, UNCF, NSBE, La Raza, AISES, and others.

As part of its educational outreach effort, Lockheed Martin maintains a strong relationship with 85 colleges and universities including 16 HBCUs and six schools with large Hispanic popula-tions. The corporation also employs over 100 interns each year through the INROADS program. As part of an innovative and inclusive early professional development program for college students, the LM Stars Program allows Lockheed Martin employees to lead various skill-building seminars on campuses to prepare college students for today's business environment.

Vance M. Holley
Vice President, Equal Opportunity Program
Lockheed Martin Corp.

American Airlines

Debra Hunter Johnson

Q. Why did American Airlines file its "Friend of the Court" brief supporting the University of Michigan Law School?
A. American Airlines needs leaders who can succeed in a world that becomes more interconnected every day—leaders who can work with diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. The ability of our colleges and universities to recruit and train those leaders is vital to our success, and we were proud to stand with the University of Michigan to say so.

Vice President of Human Resources
American Airlines

A. At American Airlines, we believe diversity is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Only by having a rich blend of cultures and view-points in our workplace can we achieve the under-standing and spark the innovation that will keep us a strong competitor in today's commercial aviation industry.

Gerard Arpey, CEO
American Airlines

Nike

Q. Why did Nike file its "Friend of the Court" brief supporting the University of Michigan Law School?
A. Nike joined over sixty companies in filing the amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court and is pleased with the outcome of today's rulings in the University of Michigan's two cases. As stated in the brief and acknowledged by the High Court, a "compelling government interest" exists in achieving racial and ethnic diversity in higher education. We believe the Court benefited hearing from many companies that individuals educated in a diverse environment are more likely to succeed in today's global marketplace.

Even beyond race, diversity of gender, geography, sexual orientation, and persons with disabilities are vital to our product development, innovation and marketing. We also believe it is simply the right thing to do.

Wes Coleman, Vice-President Human Resources
Nike, Inc.