FACE OFF: Discrimination based on race is unconstitutional

The Issue: The Supreme Court will hear a case
originating from the University of Michigan that will decide the
fate of affirmative action in university admissions policies.
Here’s what two viewpoint columnists have to
say.

The ugly irony of affirmative action will finally be faced this
June when the Supreme Court will decide whether the University of
Michigan was unconstitutional in denying three white students
admission. By taking a nationwide stance on affirmative action, the
Supreme Court’s ruling will engender great change in
admissions policies across the nation.  

Good.

Affirmative action is blatantly unconstitutional, and many
states (including California) have already taken measures to
abolish its use in college admissions. Pro-affirmative action
activists are fighting a losing battle.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial
discrimination in “any program or activity receiving federal
financial assistance.”Â Because public and most private
schools receive federal financial assistance, race-based
discrimination is illegal regardless of who is being discriminated
against.

Still, the illegality of affirmative action has been ignored.
The chief culprits are two artless assumptions: “two wrongs
make a right” and “the end justifies the
means.”Â The former statement embodies the belief that
the wrongful suppression administered by long-dead Americans should
be paid in full by their innocent decedents, while the latter
assertion (which was once used to unmercifully enslave African
Americans on lucrative plantations) supports altogether murdering
the aspirations of hardworking, qualified students in the hopes of
meeting quotas.  

Brilliant. The discrimination of the past is greeted by the
discrimination of the future, and our nation’s qualified
students will sacrifice themselves for an ideal ““ our
politically correct culture’s idea of “bettering
society.”

However, society will not and cannot be improved by affirmative
action, because affirmative action misses the mark. Affirmative
action does not consider disadvantage; it considers skin
color. It does not reflect on hardship; it scrutinizes
ancestry. It does not sympathize with poverty; it sees only race.
Affirmative action is racist.

Affirmative action would admit the under-qualified daughter of a
wealthy Latino attorney over the qualified daughter of a
poverty-stricken Chinese immigrant. Where is the ideal in
that? How is society bettered by such a gross injustice?

Perhaps diversity is the true goal of affirmative action And
since every pro-affirmative action activist hoards the secret
knowledge that white and Asian people are inherently closed-minded,
diversity must be forced. But forced diversity is nothing more than
a vulgar imitation of the real thing. When diversity is enforced at
a cost to the majority, the majority naturally becomes hostile.
Antagonism undermines diversity, straining interaction between
ethnic groups. Clearly, no untainted end can be reached through
affirmative action.

A more worthy policy came forth when the University of
California abolished affirmative action under SP-1 in 1995 and
adopted comprehensive review. Comprehensive review considers
personal hardship instead of race. It is a just policy because
it operates on the premise that overcoming disadvantage is an
accomplishment and a qualification ““ a true indicator of
future success, just as SAT scores are. Thus, students are
admitted for their qualifications, not for their skin color.

According to the UCLA Web site, UCLA, which implements
comprehensive review, ranks number one among American colleges and
universities awarding Ph.D.s to minority students and among the top
five major universities in bestowing baccalaureate and
master’s degrees to minorities. In addition to
comprehensive review, UCLA participates in outreach efforts aimed
at helping the most disadvantaged pre-college students prepare for
applying to UC schools. Outreach programs, combined with
comprehensive review and the policy by which the top four percent
of every high school is automatically admitted into the UC system,
correctly address the issues of disadvantage and diversity by
altogether eliminating race as a factor in admittance.

Not surprisingly, public opinion sides with the University of
California. As UC Reagent Ward Connerly pointed out, a recent
Seattle Times poll revealed that 84 percent of Americans oppose
affirmative action, while 64 percent support finding other means by
which to promote diversity.  

Hopefully the Supreme Court will heed the voices of Americans,
while looking to the success of universities that have adopted
non-race based “affirmative action.” Only then will our
nation see the downfall of an implicitly unconstitutional policy
that keeps racism alive by the resentment it imbibes and by the
discrimination it supports.