This article focuses on the recent spate of cases in which educational institutions on the grounds that their race-conscious admissions policies are unconstitutional. The author analyzes the role of minority students and organizations who are the beneficiaries of those polices at the defendant institutions and their recent attempts to intervene in the lawsuits pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the author argues that under the traditional interpretation of Rule 24(a); intervention of right should be granted to minority students and organizations in the great majority of instances. Second, the author looks at the reasons that courts have denied intervention, analyzing both the rights and interests of the beneficiaries and the presumption that government parties provide adequate representation. Third, the author examines the conflicts between the interests and goals of defendant institutions and beneficiaries, noting the consequences of denying intervention. The author concludes by arguing that where the affirmative action admissions policies of educational institutions are challenged, district courts should embrace a practical presumption in favor of intervention for minority students and organizations
Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coop: Intervention as of Right and the Defense of Civil Rights Remedies,
Mich. J. Race & L.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol4/iss2/2