For Immediate Release

	TALKING POINTS FOR NBA LOCAL AFFILIATES ON SUPREME COURT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ARGUMENTS AND EMPOWERMENT THROUGH LAW AND JUSTICE AGENDA ("ETLJA") RETREAT To address the issue, the National Bar Association, along with the National Black Law Students Association, on March 31, 2003, is holding a press conference at the Supreme Court building at 12:30 p.m. A retreat at Georgetown University Law Center from 2 - 5 p.m. will follow. A candle light vigil will begin at 9:00 p.m. at the Supreme Court building, held simultaneously with NBA and NBLSA affiliate chapters across the nation. On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, Washington, D.C. participants will assemble at the Supreme Court building. Empowerment Through Law and Justice Agenda ("ETLJA") Retreat The National Bar Association ("NBA") specifically established the ETLJA as a coalition-based national legal empowerment platform to address issues which have disproportionately affected our communities over the past several years, such as attacks on affirmative action and changes in the law which sanction increased police brutality and make it more difficult to prove race discrimination. Notably, the strategic nomination and appointment of right-wing conservatives to the federal judiciary have remarkably avoided adequate scrutiny because little planning has taken place to develop an independent institutional response from our community. The mission of the ETLJA is rooted in the belief that the economic and social conditions of African-Americans mandate a more visible, vocal and pragmatic voice from African-American legal organizations and attorneys to defend principles of justice and equity. However, it is critical that any legal empowerment agenda is collaborative and implemented in conjunction with other national organizations. Therefore, we are calling upon organizations, such as the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the NAACP, Alliance of National Student Professionals, National Conference of Black Mayors, the Congressional Black Caucus, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, and others to take an active role in this endeavor. This offensive seeks to put into place a long overdue action-agenda that is organized, developed and managed by and for African-Americans. Critical times command critical action. Thus, we urge you to consider how you might help to implement this agenda. Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger In 1997, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, two white applicants to the University of Michigan's undergraduate College of Literature, Science and the Arts, filed suit against the university challenging its use of race in its admission process. The practice, they claim, unlawfully discriminates against them, thus resulting in the denial of their admission. Also in 1997, Barbara Grutter, an unsuccessful applicant of the university's law school, filed suit against the school. She is also challenging the university's use of race in its admission process. The Center for Individual Rights, a Washington, D.C. firm, is representing the plaintiffs in both cases. This firm's agenda is to dismantle affirmative action programs nationwide. The University of Michigan also has an agenda. Using the permission granted by the Constitution and civil rights statutes as interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision, the university uses race and ethnicity in its admission process in order to create and promote a diverse student body. Their argument is that a racially diverse student body provides significant educational benefits, and that providing these benefits is a "compelling governmental interest", justifying the practice. In 1998, motions to intervene in both cases were filed by numerous organizations and individuals including United for Equality and Affirmative Action (UEAA), the umbrella organization of the student intervenors, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and high school students and their parents. The motions were denied. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and allowed intervention in both cases. On December 13, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Duggan granted summary judgment in the Gratz case, saying that the University's undergraduate admissions policy meets the standards set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Bakke, but that the admissions programs in 1995-1998 were unconstitutional. Both sides filed appeals with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 26, 2001, Judge Duggan dismissed the undergraduate intervenors' claims which presented alternative defenses of the policy. On March 27, 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman issued his opinion in the Grutter case, saying that the law does not permit colleges and universities to use race in admissions, and that even if the law did permit this practice, the law school's policy weighs race too heavily. He issued an injunction to prohibit the law school's use of race in admissions. The Court of Appeals issued a stay of the injunction. Judge Friedman also denied the intervenors' claims. In 2001, The Supreme Court refused to review Smith v. University of Washington Law School, which upheld the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions, and Hopwood v. Texas, which struck down the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions. Several amicus briefs were filed with the Sixth Circuit Court in the Gratz case. Amici of the University of Michigan included, among many others, General Motors, a group of 32 Fortune 500 companies, the American Bar Association, and the Attorney General of Michigan. Those in support of the Plaintiff include the National Association of Scholars, the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Pacific Legal Foundation On May 14, 2002, The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Grutter case that the law school's admissions policy is constitutional based on the Bakke precedent. On August 9, 2002, CIR filed a petition for certiorari, asking for review of the Grutter case and on October 1, 2002, plaintiffs in Gratz filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. On October 29, 2002, the University filed its response to petitions. On December 2, 2002 the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment on the constitutional issue only in Gratz and granted certiorari in the Grutter case. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in both cases on April 1, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. (Grutter) and 11:00 a.m. (Gratz). The same U. S. Supreme Court that appointed George W. Bush president; the same President Bush who has made it clear that he does not support affirmative action programs. In fact, President Bush has filed his own brief in opposition to University of Michigan's affirmative action policy. A nationwide march and rally at the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled for April 1 beginning at 7:00 a.m. Organizations involved in support of the rally include the National Bar Association, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action & Integration, Law Students for Affirmative Action and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). Reverend Jesse Jackson, founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Reverend Al Sharpton, and other civil rights leaders have pledged to mobilize and march to the U.S. Supreme Court with these organizations. Malcolm S. Robinson, president of the National Bar Association, one of the organizations acting as intervenors in the Gratz case and amici in the Grutter case, is quoted as saying, "President Bush wants us to ignore generations of prejudice and discrimination. He claims that he supports diversity; however, he does not believe that diversity on college campuses constitutes a compelling governmental interest warranting his support." Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of Americans for a Fair Chance, says on the organization's website, "Higher education is the gateway to the American dream. This Court has an opportunity to reaffirm that affirmative action programs are an essential part of America's continuing progress towards universal equality of opportunity." Americans for a Fair Chance is a consortium of six leading civil rights legal organizations: Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Women's Law Center, and the National Partnership for Women and Families "The Bush Administration calls for fairness, yet it is willing to allow special privileges for some applicants like those who's parents are alums or those who excel in sports and produce revenue for athletic programs. Justice Thurgood Marshall saw fit to support affirmative action in the Bakke decision. Unfortunately, we have yet to reach a point in our society where we no longer need these measures to provide for equality and diversity, it is amazing that President Bush does not see that." - Malcolm S. Robinson, president of the National Bar Association