Sample feedback against joining amicus

February 14, 2003

Many responses simply said I disagree, or I do not approve. Here is a sampling:

"I strongly disagree with the University of Michigan's admission policy - both on a legal and policy basis. I do not wish to be associated with any organization that would file a brief in support of the University of Michigan's position. Thank you. "

"UM's position is not only unconstitutional. It's immoral. I strongly object to the use of my dues to provide an amicus brief in support."

"I don't think that the State Bar Association should join the amicus brief on behalf of the University of MI Law School. Affirmative action is an insult to people of color - it sends the message that they are not good enough or smart enough to get ahead by themselves. Other students will always look at students of color and wonder if they are only there because of their race and assume that they are not really qualified to be there. I know, because I wondered that very thing when I went to law school, and it was an ugly thought."

"I oppose any brief in favor of a policy which does not seek to rectify historical discrimination against blacks but instead seeks to further 'diversity' of skin color by giving racial (and perhaps gender) preferences in admission. Such a policy is antithetical to fairness, equal rights, and stigmatizes all such graduates as 'affirmative action' graduates. In fact, such policies enhance the status of white males and makes them more attractive job candidates because everyone knows they 'got in' solely on merit."

"Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the Bar leadership with respect to the Michigan admissions issue. I am opposed to the system of race based preferences employed by the University in its admissions programs. I consider such programs that create preferences for any race over any other to be unethical, immoral and unconstitutional. From a purely practical point of view, I do not know any court or legislature wise enough to construct laws or rules clever enough to prevent well intentioned preferences in favor of one group (race) that will not result in unfair treatment of one or more other groups. For these reasons, I urge the bar not to file an amicus brief in this case, or if it does, to file a brief opposing the University's practice of illegal discrimination on the basis of race."

"Whether or not one agrees with the position of the University of Michigan law school (which I absolutely do not), I consider it an outrage that the board of governors of our mandatory bar would presume to take it upon itself to lobby and speak on my behalf and on behalf of the Wisconsin State Bar as a whole on a socio-political issue so far afield from any mission or authority of the Wisconsin State Bar's charter as to be ludicrous.

Unless those members of the Board of Governors voting in favor of filing this amicus brief wish to do so in their own names, on their own time and on their own nickel, KEEP THE WISCONSIN STATE BAR AND ME, BY VIRTUE OF MY MEMBERSHIP, OUT OF IT."

"Under no circumstances should the Wisconsin Bar associate itself with the immoral and unconstitutional admissions policies of the University of Michigan, of whose law school I am a proud alumnus despite its execrable racially discriminatory actions."

"The Michigan reverse discrimination program is a denial of equal protection of the laws and an invalid quota system under Bakke. Why don't you use bar money to get at the real problem, and help improve inner city schools in Milwaukee?"

"I feel strongly that it is important to encourage and accommodate diversity. Unfortunately, I also believe that the UM method is unconstitutional. So, from a legal standpoint, I believe that the Bar's brief has to oppose the UM. The words of Martin Luther King, Jr. should be followed: "A person should be judged on the basis of the content of his character not the color of his skin."

As a minority (Hispanic and female), I am opposed to the Wisconsin Bar joining an amicus on behalf of the University of Michigan as a matter of philosophy, principle and legal interpretation of the clear legislative history of the Civil Rights Act. I practiced equal employment law in Wisconsin and served in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and as General Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I truly believe in equal opportunity without regard to race. Quotas disguised as 'affirmative action' are discriminatory and contradict the true principle of equality. They also undercut society's perception of successful minorities being able to compete on an equal basis. The results are a disservice to all of us.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment."

"Please do not join any amicus brief on behalf of the University of Michigan in this case. It is clearly unlawful to use race as a factor in any college admissions process. Thank you."

"We believe the admission practice at the University of Michigan to be discriminatory, and do not believe our Bar should join in any briefs supporting its practice. We do not want our names included as supporters of discrimination in any form."

"No. The use of affirmative action criteria to post as much as 20% of the composite score for admission to law school is on its face a violation of the 14th Amendment. I vehemently object to supporting this discriminatory scheme."

"Regardless of my personal opinion on this case (or that of individual members of the Board of Governors), it would be totally inappropriate and a very bad idea for the State Bar to take a position either for against the U of Mich's position. This is clearly an issue on which members will disagree and there is no reason for there to be a "State Bar position." The Bar has no inherent interest - these issues have no direct bearing on the legal system, attorneys' interests, etc."

"In expressing my opinion, I want Board members to understand that my position of whether the Board should participate in supporting/opposing a specific position is unrelated from my own personal views regarding the role of affirmative action in higher education. My personal opinions are separate and distinct from the question of whether the Board should participate in this litigation.

I oppose the Bar's decision to participate in Grutter v. Bollinger.

First, the Board has not clearly and succinctly why taking a specific position will further the interests the practice of law in Wisconsin and the interests of lawyers as a whole.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, reasonable minds (including those of its membership) may strongly disagree on whether affirmative action is legally or morally appropriate solution to remedy the invidious harms caused by past discrimination. The Wisconsin Bar is a mandatory, not a voluntary organization. Members do not have the freedom to associate or disassociate with the Bar. Some suggest that those who disagree with the Board's position should exercise their option to utilize the Keller rebate. While this is a lawful solution, the chains of association remain. By law, the attorney remains compelled to associate with an organization that has taken a position which the attorney may reasonably oppose on moral and philosophical grounds.

In deciding whether to support/oppose a specific position, the Board should also consider whether its members have the ability to express their opinions through other means. With respect to the issues in Grutter v. Bollinger, members may voluntarily associate with organizations, including legal organizations, that have staked out an opinion on this issue.

Third, the Board takes a risk with the organization's future when it takes a position on an issue that some may consider controversial. The Board must be conscious of the fact that staking claims in these matters could lead to factionalism within the Bar and could lead to future Boards taking positions on issues with which the current Board disagrees. In turn, this creates a risk that the Bar will become an organization of highly competing interests (not that those interests don't already exist) unrestrained by its primary interest: furthering the interests of the Bar, its members, and the law.

Again, thank you for allowing input in this matter."

"I am strongly opposed to the Bar Association taking a position on this issue. We are a mandatory association and taking such a position violates the rights of a significant number, if not a majority, of our members."

"I am absolutely opposed to such a brief. Indeed, if any briefs were to be filed, they should be filed on behalf of the students who were denied admission. Simply put, racial discrimination is wrong, regardless of whom it benefits or how it is justified.

On an institutional level, his is the type of case that a mandatory bar association should completely avoid. First, the institutional interests of the bar in this case are not clear. I doubt that the bar will be affected much one way or the other. Second, the bar membership is far from unanimous in its position on this case. Those of us who oppose Michigan should not have our dues used to subsidize the other side's iew, nor should an institution with whom we are required to belong take a public position that implies our support."

"It is highly likely that consensus on either side of the issues among the members of the State Bar of Wisconsin does not exist. For that reason I strongly oppose filing an amicus brief in the case. It is highly inappropriate to take a position which is represented as an official position of the State Bar of Wisconsin without the requisite consensus of the members."

"I am against the state bar becoming political and taking positions on issues, such as affirmative action, that are fundamentally political in nature. The state bar contains an enormously diverse membership with a wide range of views on many issues. Membership is mandatory. If the state bar becomes a politicized organization (even on the recommendation of a majority of the Board of Governors), I believe it violates its purpose and its effectiveness. Additionally, such political action is divisive. Ultimately, continued political action may well result in the membership being unable to work together in the areas in which it should work together. A small minority of the membership, such as the Board of Governors, no matter how well-meaning, should not commit the entire bar to a political position that the entire bar may not hold. The state bar should remain neutral on all political issues. I suggest the bar not file an amicus brief."

"I do not believe the State Bar should join any amicus brief on this issue. Until this request, I supported the Bar even though membership in the bar was not a choice. Your position on this matter has made me reconsider my support for the State Bar. As a government agency, you should not be taking a position on this matter. Your position does not reflect the position of a large number of your membership. I have not been contacted by my representative asking me what my opinion is on this issue. What about attorneys who do not have e-mail? Do you discount their opinions? Why the late notice? If you join the amicus brief, you will be speaking as one voice for all the attorneys in Wisconsin when the attorneys in Wisconsin did not have a choice in membership in the bar. Who will be the voice for the attorneys who disagree with your position? When will the state bar join amicus briefs for issues involving the death penalty, abortion, tobacco, lead paint, fast food lawsuits, etc.? I am very disappointed in the state bar and its leadership."