Court Ruling Should Reflect Nation's Values on RaceThursday, April 3, 2003
Court Ruling Should Reflect Nation's Values on Race
U-M affirmative action case gives the court a chance to move America beyond racial barriers
By The Detroit News
Having heard arguments in the University of Michigan admissions policy case, the Supreme Court will now spend the next several weeks deciding whether it is appropriate for America to continue taking extraordinary measures to close its racial divide. What's at stake in the affirmative action case are the country's good faith efforts to truly level the playing field for minorities who still lag behind due to generations of racism and discrimination.
U-M, rightly troubled that its campus did not reflect the state's rich diversity, devised a reasonable, points-based admissions policy that allowed a number of socioeconomic factors, including race, to be considered in accepting students to the school. Blacks, Latinos and other underrepresented groups were allowed additional points to fatten their applications.
At the university's law school, race was considered as one factor to achieve a "critical mass" of minority students. Neither is a quota system, and neither admits unqualified students. Critics of U-M's policies say merit alone should decide who gets in, and that by admitting less-qualified minorities, the college is discriminating against white students. But extra points are also assigned to the children of U-M alums and those graduating from better high schools. Both those advantages tend to overly benefit whites from middle- and upper-income families, and exclude minority students, poking holes in the merit-only argument.
There is considerable speculation that the court will not throw out affirmative action, but rather ask that the university devise a new admissions system. That would seem a needless waste of effort, given that U-M's system is fair and reasonable and working to create a highly talented pool of minority students. But whatever the legal intricacies of the ruling, the end result should be that U-M and other universities be permitted flexibility in considering the racial make-up of campuses when deciding which applicants to accept and which to deny.
U-M's commitment to affirmative action reflects two realities: * The ill effects of discrimination and racism still linger. Blacks and other minorities are more likely to come from lower-income groups and schools that may not have prepared them for college or other secondary training. Affirmative action has gone a long way toward erasing the income gap between people of color and whites during the past 35 years, but more progress is needed. Assisting minorities to a high-quality education is the surest way to finish the job.
* Society demands diversity. It's no mystery why dozens of corporations and business groups backed U-M in the lawsuit. Corporate America has found that diversity is good for business, and good for the country. But businesses can't expect to create a diverse workforce unless colleges like U-M produce diverse graduating classes. There's another point here, too. Many fear that a court decision that limits affirmative action at colleges will send a chilling signal throughout society and might encourage a giant step backward.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to help America continue its progress toward a society free from racial barriers. It should rule in a way that reflects the values of the nation.
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page