December 8, 2002
By Tanu T. Henry

36-year-old Miranda Massie describes her involvement in the Supreme Court's recent ruling on affirmative action at the University of Michigan as "the honor of her life." The Detroit lawyer represented students of color at Michigan's law school, winning for them the unprecedented right to be included as "party defendants" with a vested interest in the outcome of the case. While the arguments of constitutional lawyers and activists ruled the airwaves, Massie worked for the people at the heart of the case: black students.

Cites her hopes for building a new civil rights movement, Massie sees Monday's high court decision as a "huge victory" in a society that, still maintains a racial caste system. Africana spoke to her about the case, as well as why it's being hailed as a victory for civil rights.

What was your role in the Michigan case?

I'm lead counsel for a pro-affirmative action coalition and for the students who intervened in the Grutter v. Bollinger law school case as party defendants. There are 41 students of all races and sexes but they are majority black and majority women.

Did you argue before the Supreme Court?

No. The university opposed our motion to split the time before the Court. So, while we had been considered as an equal partner up to that point ó putting it bluntly and I can't find a more polite way to put this for the record ó they screwed us at the last moment. I think there were a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that we were raising questions about the biases in standardized testing. We were talking about the way admission criteria are about white privilege and the fact that affirmative action offsets that. [The university] didn't want those arguments to get that kind of airtime.

Do you plan to keep pressing the argument about testing bias, white supremacy and inequality?

Absolutely. Our arguments were for integration and against white privilege and racism and we absolutely plan to pursue those. In terms of this case, we have won already. Even if we weren't allowed to argue before the Supreme Court, we still have a complete victory and we feel we contributed a lot to it.

Why is this a victory?

One, because of the arguments we made for equality and integration. But also because the law students have been spearheading the redevelopment of the civil rights movement and they brought tens of thousands of people to Washington, DC on the day the Supreme Court heard the arguments. They have also been mobilizing other students around the country.

The victory seems clear in the Law School case. However, the Supreme Court also voted to limit the use of race as in the University of Michigan undergraduate admission process. How can you consider the split votes an all-around victory?

I actually disagree with the way some media outlets are casting this as an even-steven, equal balance split, because what was at stake here was: will schools still have the right to make progress toward integration? And the answer to that question is clearly "yes." The University of Michigan will have to adjust the admission process in its undergraduate program. And other schools around the country will have to tinker with their affirmative action programs. But the bottom line here is that schools will be able to continue to make progress toward integration.

In fact, it would have still been a victory if we had lost the Law School case and won the undergraduate case. Either decision wouldn't limit what schools can do. It only means they will have to tinker with their programs some.

So no matter how you cut it, you feel you've won?

Absolutely.

What would have been a losing scenario?

A sickening defeat would have been something along the lines of what George Bush advocated in his friend of the court brief that said, "oh, we value diversity, and affirmative action can sometimes be legal, but neither of these two plans is." That would have meant that every school across the country would have to shut down its affirmative action programs.

How can schools continue to pursue diverse student bodies if they have to abandon the use of numerical or point systems in their admissions processes?

It's really not that hard. Being able to use a point system makes it easier to process mass numbers of applications at huge schools like Michigan, but that doesn't mean you can't process them by doing individual readings of the files. It's just going to take a little longer. They are going to be able to admit even greater numbers of black and Latino students under an admissions process similar to the University of Michigan Law School's.

Do you think schools will begin to adjust their policies immediately or should we expect to see more lawsuits?

I think they will adjust. But these rulings provides a basis for defending the minority summer programs that have been under attack, as well as any affirmative action plan that does not use a point system.

Did any of the votes surprise you at all?

Not really. I am interested that Breyer voted against some aspects of the undergraduate plan. That was surprising.

Clarence Thomas definitely didn't surprise us. He has made himself incapable of surprising anyone anymore.