A much-needed victory for affirmative action came in the form of a well-reasoned decision issued last month in federal court. The University of Michigan's affirmative action program, which has come under fire for a point-based admissions process that explicitly benefits racial minorities, was upheld by Judge Patrick J. Duggan of the Federal District Court in Detroit. In his opinion, Duggan rightly ruled that the government has a compelling interest to support the educational benefits that stem from a diverse student body.

Michigan's current point-based system was instituted to replace its previous two-tiered grid system, which was struck down by the courts in 1998. Rather than admit minority students under criteria separate from the one used for non-minorities--effectively reserving seats for minority applicants--a point-based system acknowledges that race is one of a number of factors to be considered in admissions decisions.

In an ideal world, Harvard's admissions policy, which was cited approvingly by the Supreme Court in the 1978 University of California Regents v. Bakke case, is the model method toward which other schools should strive. Although Harvard acknowledges that race is one factor in the deliberation process, there is no explicit point system, meaning that an individual can be considered independently of any rigid scale. This allows for a more nuanced approach that places race within the context of an applicant's whole life experience.

Nevertheless, a point system is the best approximation for Harvard's process, especially at large public universities that may not have the physical or capital resources to scrutinize huge applicant pools. Although not entirely a cosmetic difference, a point-based system is still conceptually similar; it merely attempts to quantify Harvard's implicit recognition of race as a factor in admissions decisions.

Finally, while we agree with the spirit behind Michigan's admissions policy, we would take issue with some of its nuances. For example, on a 150-point scale, blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans receive a 20-point increase. A perspicacious essay, outstanding leadership skills or noteworthy personal achievement receives a relatively paltry 3 points, but a perfect GPA will earn one up to 80 points. In addition, whites and Asians of economic disadvantage receive 20 points, as do scholarship athletes. A Michigan resident garners 10 points, the child of an alumnus receives 4, and a perfect score on the SAT wins one 12 points.

This numerical breakdown could be improved, making the point allocation to a minority a more precise exercise. It does not seem just to treat poor minorities in the same way as minorities who receive the finest private school education. We encourage Michigan to consider tweaking the point system, but we are certain that the current valuations go a long way in fostering a diverse student body.

Duggan's ruling will most likely be appealed. It is also possible that the Supreme Court will take this case, or a similar one, to clarify the Bakke precedent. We hope that a future court, even with some President Bush appointees, will reaffirm the constitutionality of using race as one of many factors in the admissions process. And, if the Supreme Court does takes an affirmative action case, Harvard should again voice support for the educational benefits of campus diversity.