By: Branden Largent

The U.S. Supreme Court made two landmark decisions affecting marriage equality in California and the nation on Wednesday. 

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. The Court also struck down California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative constitutionally banning same-sex marriage, allowing gay marriage to resume in the state.

For Minnesota and 11 other states where same-sex marriage is legal, the elimination of DOMA means same-sex couples will now get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, said Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professor Jessica Levinson.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the Court opinion that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment because it “singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

Phil Duran, legal director of Outfront Minnesota — a Minnesota gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality organization — said the decisions were “tremendous victories for same-sex couples.”

He said the addition of federal benefits and legal standing makes for a “huge shift in the lives of same-sex couples in Minnesota.”

In the Proposition 8 decision, the Court said there was no standing to appeal the 9th Circuit District Court’s decision that the proposition was unconstitutional.

Although the Court’s decision on Proposition 8 only affects same-sex marriage in California, Levinson said the decision could affect ballot measures across the nation.

University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Teresa Collett said she found the Proposition 8 decision “troubling,” because it showed voter-passed initiatives could be overturned by one judge if the state government doesn’t defend it.

“We’ve enlarged the power of the executive branch dramatically, and deprived the people of their right to have their lawful judgments defended,” she said.

But Levinson said she didn’t think it was “particularly inappropriate” for a judge to have the ability to overturn a voted statute. 

“The public may not find it hugely popular, but that’s the role of the judiciary — to protect minority rights,” Levinson said.

The Proposition 8 decision also didn’t say anything about the rights of same-sex couples to marry, she said, and instead focused on the legal aspect of the case.

Autumn Leva, a spokeswoman for Minnesota for Marriage — an organization that supports marriage only between between one man and one woman — said members were disappointed by the results of the decisions, but relieved that the marriage debate remains in the hands of citizens of each state. 

“[We’re] losing the federal unity of what understanding marriage is and what marriage should be — between one man and one woman — around the country,” Leva said.

She said the decision on DOMA also didn’t clarify what will happen to the federal benefits for married same-sex couples if they move to a state that hasn’t legalized gay marriage.

“These rulings in no way offer any firm clarity on how this is going to play out,” Leva said.

Pick up Wednesday’s Minnesota Daily for more on the effects of the decisions on same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

By: Branden Largent

The U.S. Supreme Court made two landmark decisions affecting marriage equality in California and the nation on Wednesday. 

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment. The Court also struck down California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative constitutionally banning same-sex marriage, allowing gay marriage to resume in the state.

For Minnesota and 11 other states where same-sex marriage is legal, the elimination of DOMA means same-sex couples will now get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples, said Loyola Law School, Los Angeles professor Jessica Levinson.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the Court opinion that DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment because it “singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

Phil Duran, legal director of Outfront Minnesota — a Minnesota gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality organization — said the decisions were “tremendous victories for same-sex couples.”

He said the addition of federal benefits and legal standing makes for a “huge shift in the lives of same-sex couples in Minnesota.”

In the Prop. 8 decision, the Court said there was no standing to appeal the 9th Circuit District Court’s decision that the proposition was unconstitutional.

Although the Court’s decision on Prop. 8 only affects same-sex marriage in California, Levinson said the decision could affect ballot measures across the nation.

University of St. Thomas School of Law professor Teresa Collett said she found the Prop. 8 decision “troubling,” because it showed voter-passed initiatives could be overturned by one judge if the state government doesn’t defend it.

“We’ve enlarged the power of the executive branch dramatically, and deprived the people of their right to have their lawful judgments defended,” she said.

But Levinson said she didn’t think it was “particularly inappropriate” for a judge to have the ability to overturn a voted statute. 

“The public may not find it hugely popular, but that’s the role of the judiciary — to protect minority rights,” Levinson said.

The Prop. 8 decision also didn’t say anything about the rights of same-sex couples to marry, she said, and instead focused on the legal aspect of the case.

Autumn Leva, a spokeswoman for Minnesota for Marriage — an organization that supports marriage only between between one man and one woman — said members were disappointed by the results of the decisions, but relieved that the marriage debate remains in the hands of citizens of each state. 

“[We’re] losing the federal unity of what understanding marriage is and what marriage should be — between one man and one woman — around the country,” Leva said.

She said the decision on DOMA also didn’t clarify what will happen to the federal benefits for married same-sex couples if they move to a state that hasn’t legalized gay marriage.

“These rulings in no way offer any firm clarity on how this is going to play out,” Leva said.

Pick up Wednesday’s Minnesota Daily for more on the effects of the decisions on same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

By: Branden Largent

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court sending the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin back to the lower courts Monday, the University of Minnesota will reevaluate its own admissions policies.

The 7-1 decision limited the use of race-based college admissions and ordered the  5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to re-examine the case  using the highest possible level of scrutiny on admissions programs that utilize racial categories.

In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, native Texan Abigail Fisher claimed she was denied admission to the university in 2008 because she is white. She claimed the University’s policy of considering race in admissions violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

The ruling said that courts must decide that “no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.”

Although the decision doesn’t affect current affirmative action policies, the University of Minnesota’s Office of the General Counsel will work with administrators and the University’s Office of Admissions to ensure its policies are in line with current standards, said William Donohue, interim General Counsel.

University officials will make sure its admissions policies pass strict scrutiny, meaning that policies are narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse student body, Donohue said.

After the review is complete, the OGC will communicate its key findings with administrators whose work could be directly affected by the Supreme Court decision, University President Eric Kaler said in a statement.

The University uses race, ethnicity or other factors to increase diversity in the student body through its “holistic review” admissions process, said Rachel Hernandez, director of admissions.

This process considers both primary and secondary factors in admissions decisions. Primary factors include high school GPA and standardized test scores, while secondary factors include less measurable criteria, like military service, volunteer work, race and gender.

“No single factor in our admissions decision review is a deciding factor,” Hernandez said, adding that academic factors receive the highest emphasis.

When Fisher applied to the University of Texas at Austin, the school automatically accepted Texas high school students who ranked in the top 10 percent of their class. For those who didn’t make that cut-off, other factors — including race — were considered in the admissions process.

The University of Texas at Austin currently accepts Texas students from the top 8 percent of their graduating high school classes automatically.

Because the lower court didn’t apply the correct standard of strict scrutiny, its decision in favor of the university was “incorrect,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s opinion.

When reviewing the case again, the appeals court must use the level of scrutiny employed in the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s use of affirmative action in admissions.

 “[The decision] provides stability to the legal analysis of affirmative action,” Donohue said. “In that way it’s a good thing.”

By: Janice Bitters

Beginning July 1, the University of Minnesota will no longer offer a student discount for the Microsoft Office Suite.

Currently, students can buy the software for $40 from the Office of Information Technology.

Following approval by the Board of Regents last week, the University will discontinue the discount because the number of students purchasing the software has declined in recent years, said Bernard Gulachek, OIT’s associate vice president.

“When we first entered into and began selling this software, Microsoft was pretty much the only one selling this software,” he said. “If you do a Google search today, you’ll come up with probably 10 products that are free.”

The University spent $750,000 on the licensing agreement last year, Gulachek said.

“It no longer makes any sense for the University to be spending these kinds of funds on a site license agreement, when there isn’t the volume that there used to be,” he said. "That money could be more easily used towards something that is more important to students.”

Computers purchased by the University will not be impacted by the change, including those bought for use by faculty and staff.

Gulachek said OIT is working with Microsoft to create a more “student-friendly” agreement before next year.

The agreement approved last week stipulates that, if another agreement isn’t made, students who have already purchased the suite from the University would need to uninstall the software by July 2014.

“That is a worst-case scenario,” Gulachek said. “I have every confidence in the world that we will come to an agreement that is more student-friendly.”

Last week, the regents also heard a presentation of a study by Huron Consulting Group that outlined various areas the University could improve on in terms of administration spending.

One of the suggestions in the study was to cut down on underutilized services, which Gulachek said would include the suite software.

By: Hailey Colwell

While some faculty members at the University of Minnesota get federally-funded research grants, others turn to the community when looking for research opportunities.

But University officials have discouraged some faculty members from conducting community research, which is often a less-lucrative option for the University.

The Faculty Senate’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee met with representatives from the University’s Public Engagement Council in April to discuss faculty members’ concerns around the issue.

The committee is looking into whether discouraging faculty members from pursuing certain grants is a violation of their academic freedom.

The PEC was created in 2011 to advise University members on public engagement issues, which have increased in number as the University pursues relationships with surrounding communities as part of its land-grant mission.

Three faculty members told the PEC that they had been discouraged to pursue community-based research grants. The organizations they wanted to work with had caps on  how much they could reimburse the University for research costs, said Associate Vice President for Public Engagement Andrew Furco.

Faculty members who rely on community-engaged research are concerned that though they’re expected to regularly publish research, the University is prohibiting them from going after the types of studies they need to do, Furco said.

At the meeting, other faculty members raised questions on whether limiting community-engaged research is unfair to professors in the arts.

Carl Flink, committee co-chair and director of the Department of Theatre Arts and Dance, said at the meeting that the PEC should focus more on working with arts faculty because of the particularly important role community research plays for them.

Faculty members who’ve done community research have said they feel disadvantaged because there is no set way to review their research. Their departments have told them to list their community work as engagement or outreach in their portfolios even when the work was research-based, they said.

The committee is looking into whether guidelines should be established for reviewing professors’ community work.

By: Roy Aker

Nearly 100 years ago, three international students from Shanghai were the first Chinese students to graduate from the University of Minnesota.

Today, there are more than 2,400 University students from greater China on a campus that boasts one of the nation’s longest held relationships between a university and China.

University President Eric Kaler, his wife Karen and five others will leave Sunday for China as part of an 11-day tour — his first international trip as president.

Meredith McQuaid, associate vice president and dean of International Programs, who will join Kaler on the trip, said Kaler will be meeting with University alumni, prospective students and donors while abroad.

After a rise in the influx of Chinese students began five years ago, McQuaid said, growth has remained steady.

In 2009, the University opened its first international office in Beijing to recruit prospective students and better serve alumni living in China.

Staff at the Beijing office meet with students at some of China’s top international institutions and help with pre-departure orientation.

“It’s difficult for any non-American to figure out how this country runs higher education,” McQuaid said.

Unlike most countries, she said, the U.S. does not have a central ministry of education — rather, higher education is structured on a state-based system.

“If a student said she wanted to study in America, it’s daunting for them to figure out how they organize what’s private versus public, what’s a four-year and what’s a research institution; it’s really dense,” she said.

Part of the goal of the Beijing office is to make the process easier for students.

In addition to meeting with staff at the Beijing office, part of Kaler’s trip will be enhancing the University’s reputation as a destination for global talent.

McQuaid said Chinese students often only consider coastal areas as locales to study, which is part of why the University wants to connect with students directly in China.

The total cost of the trip will be $125,000, or $7,450 per person, according to a press release from the Global Programs and Strategy Alliance.

Expenses for the Kalers, as well as those of Jay Weiner, the president’s speechwriter, will be covered by private funds from the University of Minnesota Foundation. All other costs will be paid by GPS Alliance reserves from earned income and discretionary funds from the foundation.

By: Janice Bitters

The University of Minnesota is currently in talks with Teach for America about a potential partnership, according to a written statement released Thursday by Jean Quam, dean of the College of Education and Human Development.

CEHD faculty members and administrators have discussed “in depth” the possibility of partnering with TFA, according to Quam’s statement.

“We expect to make a decision in the coming weeks,” the statement said.

Talks between CEHD and TFA have been in progress for several weeks. According to the statement, TFA initially approached the college because of its “expertise in teacher education.”

As part of the discussion process, CEHD faculty members and administrators have “consulted widely with educators in the community and at other universities,” the statement said.

TFA members are required to have a bachelor’s degree to be considered for a teaching position with the organization.

Once selected, Minnesota members attend a 5-week teacher training and are enrolled in a two-year program with Hamline University, which is currently the only TFA partner institution in the state. Through the program, participants earn a full teaching license while simultaneously teaching in Minnesota K-12 schools.

It is currently unclear how a partnership with the University of Minnesota would impact TFA’s partnership with Hamline.

Bill Lindquist, associate chair of Hamline’s Department of Teacher Education, declined to comment on the school’s relationship with TFA.

University spokesman Steve Henneberry said the University’s discussions with TFA are still in preliminary stages.

“It’s important to note that CEHD is considering the possibilities, advantages and complexities of offering both TFA and traditional teacher education programs,” Quam’s statement said.