Affirmative action and college admissions Affirmative action and college admissions
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
THE U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week opposing the use of affirmative action in selecting applicants to the University of Michigan. But affirmative action is the only way to guarantee some measure of diversity on the nation's most select campuses. The court may decide not to uphold the system now in place at Michigan. But significantly, the premise that race is an acceptable factor in choosing among applicants - to make up for the discrimination long inherent in American society - seemed important to a majority of the justices.
That impression is based on their questioning of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, three white students rejected by the University of Michigan. Three justices strongly oppose affirmative action, and four are strongly in favor. The remaining two -Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy -represent potential swing votes. Ms. O'Connor reminded the lawyers for the students that special consideration for minorities has been upheld by the court in the past: "I think we have given recognition to the use of race in a variety of settings."
Mr. Kennedy asked the lawyers for the students if it was a legitimate concern for a university when only a tiny percentage of students are minority. The attorney responded that it would not justify racial preferences. But Mr. Kennedy disagreed. He said that if few black and Hispanic students graduate from top universities and law schools, "It's a broad social and political concern.
I should think that it is a very legitimate concern on the part of the state." We concur. Lawyers for the university also were questioned closely and forced to defend an admissions system whereby a black, Hispanic, or Native American applicant is automatically given 20 points, while high SAT scores or an excellent essay merit far fewer points. Some justices wondered whether the university law school's search for a "critical mass" of minority students was not a quota system in disguise. Numerical quota systems for racial preference have been shot down by the court. The tragic reality is that many minority students in America attend inferior high schools.
Yet the most promising of them should be afforded access to the elite colleges, medical schools, and law schools that produce tomorrow's leaders. How is society to be truly diverse, tolerant, and democratic if some levels of power and influence are closed to all but whites? How can there be a perception of fairness? Those questions were raised by a friend-of-the-court brief filed by retired members of the U.S. military, which uses affirmative action at the nation's military academies to ensure a diverse officer corps.
The brief, representing the views of three former joint chiefs of staff, two former defense secretaries, and several retired four-star generals, strongly endorsed the policy and said affirmative action is essential to the nation's security and to a cohesive force. The brief said in the past, an extremely low percentage of minority officers directing a large number of enlisted blacks and Hispanics led to perceptions of discrimination, low morale, and heightened racial tension in the ranks. Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch opponent of racial preference, suggested simply lowering the standards at the University of Michigan and admitting lower-achieving students, both white and minority.
That would eliminate the need for affirmative action, Mr. Scalia said. However, it would also dramatically change the character of one of the nation's top public universities. There is an important place in higher education for those universities and research institutions that attract the best and the brightest. Without a diverse student body, however, those schools - and all who attend them - would be the poorer. So would our society as a whole.
Copyright © 2003 North Jersey Media Group Inc. Copyright infringement notice Print | Close
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page