Harvard—in a friend-of-the-court brief signed by seven other universities—asked the Supreme Court to uphold the principle of affirmative action in college admissions yesterday.

In April, the court will hear arguments in two cases challenging the University of Michigan’s undergraduate and law school admissions policies as well as the concept of affirmative action in admissions in general.

The brief argues that the court should find both of Michigan’s policies constitutional.

Michigan’s undergraduate admissions decisions are based on a point system, in which minority students are given a 20 point boost. The law school’s policy more closely resembles that of Harvard College, which says only that race is considered as a factor in admissions.

The bulk of the brief outlines and defends Harvard’s policy, making the argument that diversity is an educational benefit and that alternative means of ensuring a diverse student body are flawed.

Drafted by Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe and attorney Jonathan S. Massey, the brief is one of more than 60 in support of Michigan’s policies filed by today’s deadline.

Brown University, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth College, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and Yale University accepted an invitation to sign Harvard’s brief.

The move once again puts Harvard in the spotlight as the affirmative action debate is played out in court.

The last time the high court considered affirmative action in admissions, in the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, a Harvard brief proved central to its decision. Though the court prohibited the use of quotas in admissions, it upheld some forms of affirmative action, citing Harvard College’s admission policy as a model.

University President Lawrence H. Summers was unavailable for comment yesterday, but Summers outlined the main points of the brief in a press release.

“We hope the Supreme Court, as it did 25 years ago in Bakke, will preserve universities’ flexibility to maintain carefully tailored admissions programs that do not turn a blind eye to the powerful educational value of student diversity,” Summers said.

University General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano stressed the importance of speaking out in support of affirmative action, particularly since private universities like Harvard could be negatively affected by a ruling overturning Bakke.

“We have a stake in this—this is an important case for us,” Iuliano said.

If the court were to reverse the Bakke decision, private institutions including Harvard could risk losing federal funds for financial aid and research based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Derek C. Bok, a vocal supporter of affirmative action who served as Harvard’s president during the Bakke case, said in an interview last week that the University’s brief would likely play an important role in the Michigan cases.