Editorial: Affirmative action still best road to diversity

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the University of
Michigan affirmative action case, which has gained notoriety over
the past few months, on Tuesday. It is widely expected that if
Michigan’s affirmative action policies are struck down, the
case can be used as precedent to end affirmative action completely.
Whether or not the Supreme Court decides Michigan’s
affirmative action methods are illegal, it should not rule that
using race as a factor in itself is not allowable.

Michigan’s admissions system attracts anti-affirmative
action sentiment because it bluntly rewards race in relation to
other academic factors, rather than using other colleges’
more subjective means. For example, the university’s system
awards applicants 20 points out of a possible 150 for minority
status, 12 for a perfect SAT score, and one for an outstanding
essay. The plaintiffs, using the 1978 case Regents of the
University of California vs. Bakke, in which the court ruled racial
quotas were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause, argue Michigan’s program constitutes a
quota system.

However, it can be argued Michigan’s point system is not
technically a quota system as described in Bakke because it does
not set aside a finite number of positions for minorities. It
instead gives a large boost to minority applicants. Quotas were
found illegal because they excluded non-minorities prior to their
applying. Granting minorities a boost makes them more competitive,
but it doesn’t automatically exclude others.

Critics argue that Michigan’s system is a form of
discrimination. In the absolutist sense, they are right. But there
is a difference between discrimination maliciously applied to
groups, and that used in the pursuit of a larger social good.
Michigan is not maliciously discriminating against qualified
candidates; it’s “discriminating” in an effort to
work toward equality and acquiring the classroom diversity most
prestigious universities have agreed is essential for a prime
learning environment.

But the bigger question surrounding the case is whether
affirmative action is still relevant and purposeful in a society
that has progressed since such programs began in the 1960s. The
answer is yes.

Affirmative action programs increase opportunities for
minorities who do not have access to the same resources as others
born into privileged circumstances. The programs are meant to have
a trickle-down effect that will ideally lead to minorities who can
both serve as role models for their community and increase
representation of their group in society’s higher
echelons.

True, affirmative action programs based mostly or exclusively on
race are no panacea for curing society’s ills in admissions
and hiring. There are many poor whites who do not reap the benefits
of affirmative action even though they are born into similar or
worse circumstances than minorities who benefit from affirmative
action. These poor non-minority students should be helped by having
universities consider individual life challenges and low
socioeconomic background ““ and most of them do. But race
should still remain an independent factor in admissions because of
institutionalized racism’s undeniable existence in our
society. Whereas a poor black and white person are on equal ground
economically, a black person has to deal with being subconsciously
deemed as inferior because of racist notions still implicit in our
society ““ the same judgment that leads to tracking in schools
and low achievement expectations.

As for the argument that affirmative action creates white
“victims” of reverse discrimination, it technically
does. But the discrimination against qualified whites that results
in their denied admission ““ but likely acceptance at another
university of comparable caliber ““ is a small price to pay
for minorities being denied access to the higher education they
desperately need. Society must decide if it values overall equality
for the many over absolute equality for the few.

Along with affirmative action programs at the college level,
there must be more focus on righting educational inequality for
K-12 students in poor areas that more often than not have
disproportionately high numbers of minorities. Many poor minorities
do not have the grades or SAT scores to get into top tier colleges
and universities because their prior education started them off far
behind more privileged students whose parents could make up for the
state’s educational shortcomings. A lack of AP classes,
updated textbooks and adequate facilities are a few examples of the
obstacles K-12 students face before they apply to a university. If
society’s problem of racial inequality and inequality of
opportunity is going to be solved, it must be nipped in the bud,
earlier than college admissions. Fixing K-12 schools and
affirmative action are not mutually exclusive goals. Affirmative
action may become unnecessary in the future, but until we fix
inequality in lower school levels, it needs to stay.