After Big Court Case, She’s Affirmative and Active

As a witness in one of the country’s most important trials involving racial politics, Erika Dowdell raised her hand and swore she would never attend a law school without an affirmative action enrollment policy.

The college junior’s emotional commentary about racism and segregation was considered some of the most powerful testimony in the 2001 court case.

The case eventually led to a federal appeals court ruling that race may be used as a criterion for admission to the University of Michigan law school.

So what is Dowdell doing taking classes at the UCLA law school--where affirmative action admission policies have been banned for the last five years?

She has been lured there by a new Critical Race Studies curriculum designed by UCLA law professors to counter the impact of Proposition 209, the 1996 statewide ballot measure that bars racial and gender considerations in state hiring, contracting and public university admissions.

UCLA describes itself as the first U.S. law school to offer such a systematic study of the role of race in law, public policy and civil rights. Designed as a kind of major within the law degree program, it offers courses such as “Street Law” and “Asian American Jurisprudence” to second- and third-year law students.

“That’s what attracted me,” said the 21-year-old Dowdell. “In the trial, I had testified very vehemently that I would not go a university that did not have an affirmative action program. But I was so attracted to the Critical Race program that I had to rethink that. It’s ironic that I’m here.”

Actually, Dowdell never intended to enrolled in any law school when she testified in Detroit federal court as a student “intervener” in the University of Michigan law school suit.

The case was brought on behalf of Barbara Grutter, a mother of two who charged that she had been denied admission to the law school because minority students were given preferential treatment. Although a lower court agreed with Grutter that the law school’s affirmative action policy violated the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against white applicants, the Cincinnati-based U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on a 5-4 vote.

“I had planned on being a K-through-12 teacher,” said Dowdell, who was a history major at the University of Michigan when she testified in March 2001. “I got involved in the case when I was 17 and in high school, and a group of students from the university came and made a presentation about the upcoming trial.

“They said that, without affirmative action, institutions of higher education would be resegregated. My parents were from Birmingham, Ala., so that really struck a chord in my heart.”

When she took the stand in Detroit federal court, Dowdell told of having been raised with three other children by her mother and attending inner-city schools that sometimes lacked books or class supplies.

“I put a lot of my own personal emotions in it. I’d invested a lot in the case. So when we [initially] lost, that’s what really made me decide that I was going to law school,” she said.

“I felt a deep betrayal by the law, more so because the judge who ruled in the case kind of admitted there are racial problems in this society and there is no level playing field, that segregation still exists. He kind of said there’s nothing the court can do about that. And I disagreed with that.”

She applied to law schools at the University of Michigan, Howard University and UCLA.

“I’d decided I would only go to a place I could continue to be active,” she said of her decision to enroll at UCLA, which came as the appeals court was considering the Michigan case. Its ruling in favor of affirmative action came May 14.

“I was excited by the decision, but there was still some tension there for me,” she said.

“A victory confirmed our arguments, but at the same time I think a lot of people will take that to mean they can get comfortable.”

Dowdell expects the ruling to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said she is prepared to go to Washington to demonstrate in favor of affirmative action.

“I believe in being an activist by whatever means is necessary to get your point across. You sometimes need to demonstrate as well as negotiate,” she said.

“I saw myself coming to California and extending the debate, knowing there is a lot of discussion about affirmative action here because of Proposition 209. I figured if I come here and tell my Michigan experience, it can influence more people to start talking about how to reverse 209.”

UCLA law officials say they welcome that kind of talk. Dowdell is one of 13 blacks in this year’s class of 300 first-year students. In comparison, the 1996 class, which enrolled before Proposition 209 was passed, included 19 African Americans.

“The faculty generally was and remains against Proposition 209,” said law school Dean Jonathan Varat. “I certainly would like it to be reversed. But we’re a law school and we obey the law.”

Varat said protests against Proposition 209, such as last year’s four-hour occupation of Royce Hall and a takeover of the law school admissions office that led to the arrest of a dozen law students in 2000, “are inevitable.” But he said he hopes students direct their protests toward voters and lawmakers, not faculty members.

Law professor Laura Gomez, who teaches “Comparative Racialization & the American Legal System” in the Critical Race Studies program, said affirmative action is necessary for California universities to reflect the state’s diversity.

“A lot of black students don’t want to come where they feel unwelcome,” she said. “Do you want to join a club where they don’t want you as a member?”

Gomez agrees that the University of Michigan lawsuit will eventually be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the trial itself will be fodder for classroom debates at law schools everywhere.

Dowdell said she’s ready for that.

“I’ll think, ‘Oh, they’re discussing me!’ I can add my opinion and explain firsthand what I saw and experienced and what I know about the case,” she said.