Equalizing opportunity

'U' should fight for campus diversity

By Jack Schillaci
Daily Editorial Page Writer

FILE PHOTO Marchers proceed down South University Avenue on Martin Luther King Day. The University is home to one of the country's largest Martin Luther King Day commemorations, hosting a variety of speeches, forums and panel discussions, as well as a traditional march moving down South University Avenue to the Diag.

The University likes to brag about campus diversity.

Reading through the dozens of flyers and bulletins first-year students received this summer, they no doubt read about the University's efforts to enhance the learning experience by seeking out a diverse campus population.

Campus diversity is important - it contributes significantly to the University's academic mission. Diversity has made a significant enhancement to campus by expanding students' learning experience beyond the classroom. It allows students to learn about the wealth of unique cultures, beliefs and ideas of people from a myriad of different backgrounds.

But campus diversity comes neither easily nor without opposition. In many ways, maintaining it has proven to be a constant battle.

Protests, arguments and heated shouting characterize the debate surrounding affirmative action, one of the backbones of the University's diversity efforts.

Former University President James Duderstadt's greatest legacy could be the Michigan Mandate and the Agenda for Women. The two programs have helped make the University campus vastly more diverse and have opened up previously unavailable opportunities to women and under-represented minorities. The mandate has helped diversify the University campus by increasing minority enrollment by more than 10 percent between 1988 and 1994.

The programs' detractors claim that what the two programs implement is little more than reverse discrimination - giving minorities the upperhand over non-minorities that previously enjoyed benefits of institutionalized racism and sexism. Opponents of affirmative action view anti-discrimination laws as ample to guarentee a gender- and color-blind world.

If only it were that simple. Making discriminatory policies illegal does not irradicate their requisite beliefs. Vestiges of previous racism and sexism such as the "good-old-boys' network" exist today, making it difficult for women and minorities to get equal opportunities despite anti-discrimination laws. University admissions policies look go beyond measuring applicants based on test scores and grade point averages - they look at students as a whole package, including race as a factor.

FILE PHOTO Engineering senior Delano White gags himself with a white cloth last January as part of "A Day Without Diversity," an event organized by some minority students to protest what they saw as a dishonest discussion of race by student and administrators.

As of late, the University garnered attention from four state legislators bent on removing what one of them, Rep. Deborah Whyman (R-Canton Twp.) called "clearly illegal" policies factoring race into admissions decisions.

Whyman and the other three - Reps. David Jaye (R-Washington Twp.), Michelle McManus (R-Traverse City), Greg Kaza (R-Rochester Hills) - have set out to find an affirmative-action martyr. They want someone who feels they were denied admission to the University because they were a non-minority.

What the four legislators seek is to sue the University and get a judicial decision similar to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School. In the case, the court decided that using race as a factor in higher-education admissions violated anti-discrimination laws.

But the legislators do not pose the only judicial threat to affirmative action's continued use. In the U.S. Supreme Court's next term, starting in October, it will face a case that could possibly result in affirmative action being declared unconstitutional. The court should take into account the uphill battle that minorities face in combatting past discrimination and allow for the continued use of the policies.

But without such programs, all of the benefits of diversity are blocked. The University of California system ended the use of affirmative action in admissions more than a year ago and since, the number of minorities in the university's graduate programs have plumetted - proving that affirmative action does indeed support a diverse campus.

Beside the barage of attacks being sent from the four state legislators along with numerous ones from conservative political leaders across the nation, the University must also battle with threats to its affirmative-action programs from within.

As part of efforts to help maintain campus diversity, the University relies on high minority application rates. Last year's applicant pool, however, consisted of 15 percent fewer minorities than in the previous year.

Last year's mistake must not be repeated with another last-ditched effort by administrators to cover their butts. The University was forced to allow minorities considering applying to delay their application essays, a move that drew much criticism. This year, administrators should think ahead and develop a plan to keep minority applications rolling in and prevent emergency plans that become public-relations nightmares.

But the underlying problem was not a lack of minority interest, but a lack of properly-focused recruiting methods by the University. Instead of focusing on minority students who may not view the University as an option, recruiters spent much time at high schools that typically send large numbers of students to the Ann Arbor campus anyway. The University should redirect recruiting efforts to areas that do not presently get adequate coverage, and in so doing enhance the minority application figures.

University President Lee Bollinger has already extended support for the University's affimative-action admissions policies. Bollinger, along with representatives of more than 60 other higher-education institutions signed a resolution supporting the use of affirmative action. They also took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to publicly declare their support of the controversial policies.

The University's future is heavily dependant on its ability to recruit a qualified, diverse student body. The University must fare the affirmative action storm and maintain work on keeping campus a diverse place in order to maintain its unique learning environment.

09-03-97