Race issue unfit for Court’s docket

You can’t always get exactly what you want. Sounds simple,
doesn’t it? Simple enough to make it into one of the
world’s best rock songs, and yet it is a concept that many in
this blessed and prosperous country seem unable or unwilling to
grasp.

I am, of course, referring to the Supreme Court’s recent
ruling allowing the use of race in the university admissions
process.

The lawsuit should never have happened. In a way, the Michigan
lawsuit was emblematic of our “me first” decade: Ask
not what you can do for your country, but what everyone else can
and should do for you.

The collegiate application process can be a heart-wrenching and
torturous ordeal. And, by all accounts, it was for the plaintiffs.
They had good grades and good recommendations and felt they
deserved a spot in the freshman class and law school, respectively.
When they didn’t get admitted, there was no hesitation as to
where to lay the blame.

Although it is difficult not to feel bad for them, it is
difficult to condone their actions, especially since the lawsuit
was largely the brainchild of Michigan philosophy Professor Carl
Cohen and some Republican state legislators.

The plaintiffs essentially answered a want ad that might as well
have read: “Wanted: Aggrieved students denied admission,
searching for anyone to blame for such an injustice except own
self.”

I believe the role of affirmative action is a complex issue
worth debating and studying. However, I do not think it should have
been brought to the forefront of our attention through a lawsuit.
The lawsuit was designed merely to force the issue, not to solve
the underlying problems.

Moreover, it has not been made clear to me why affirmative
action is so deplorable, while its other incarnations, such as
“legacy admits” and athletes, are simply business as
usual.

Under Michigan’s system, applicants falling into either
the “athlete” or “legacy” category received
points toward admission just like the minority applicants. Yet,
astonishingly, no lawsuits against those policies have been filed,
at least not to my knowledge. As Elmer Smith of the Daily News has
written, “Those are widely accepted preferences that nobody
has a problem with. Because the problem is not preferences, it (the
problem) is who gets them.”

I’m not saying athletes shouldn’t get those
benefits; athletics plays an important role in collegiate life, and
athletic achievement should be recognized and rewarded. The same
goes for the kid who gets into a school because his parents donated
a library. Everyone can enjoy the benefits of that one. It’s
all part of having a diverse campus. I just don’t understand
why that diversity should end with athletes and legacies.

This is why I don’t think the Court’s decision was
wishy-washy, if you believe one side, or that it wrongfully upheld
an outdated and racist practice, if you believe the other. Whether
you believe assigning a bonus based only on race is crucial or
criminal is a matter of opinion. But the importance of every manner
of diversity in college life is a fact.

This is not just to improve “classroom discussion,”
as it is often put; it is also a question of access: The path from
elite universities to elite professional positions is a
well-documented one, and I think opening the doors to those
positions for people who might not normally receive the opportunity
is a noble endeavor.

The day may come when college campuses become home to athletes,
sons and daughters of alumni, and minorities naturally. But that
day is not today. Until then, our current practices serve the
common good of students and this nation just fine.

Sherman is a student at the University of
Pennsylvania.