From the Daily

Diversity under attack

Courts must uphold affirmative action

Today, the affirmative action lawsuit facing the College of Literature, Science and the Arts goes to trial in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit. Both the LSA's and the Law School's use of policies designed to promote a diverse learning environment are being challenged by two class action lawsuits spearheaded by a Washington D.C.-based legal advocacy group, the Center for Individual Rights.

CIR has mounted an aggressive legal push to dismantle affirmative action at universities around the country. It was the driving force in ending affirmative action at Texas universities and is also currently suing numerous other universities, school districts, governmental agencies and other organizations in an attempt to not only fight affirmative action, but to end every program targeted specifically at minorities or women. Things such as scholarships and research grants designed for minorities and women and even funding of women's sports are also under attack from by CIR.

The primary plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the University, unsuccessful LSA applicants Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher and Law School applicant Barbara Grutter believe that the use of race as a factor in the admissions processes illegally discriminated against them.

Why we need diversity

The commendable goal of the University's consideration of race in admissions is the promotion of diversity on campus. Diversity is one of the reasons that this is a world-class institution of higher learning. The opportunity to examine ideas from as many viewpoints as possible is indispensable to a quality academic environment. Learning and the advancement of knowledge is severely limited when people from different backgrounds, with differing viewpoints, life experiences and understandings of the world are not present. In order for students to truly learn, they have to be exposed to ideas and people that allow them to experience perspectives beyond those of their own race, class, geographic region and culture. The point of education is to broaden one's knowledge and insight - an unattainable goal in an insular institution that does not strive for diversity. How can one better understand the world when surrounded only by people like themselves?

Is it really unfair?

And though it is an important goal of the University, racial diversity is only one of the many considerations in the highly complex method by which applicants are assessed. When judging applicants, the University takes into account high school grades, standardized test scores, content of a student's curriculum, co-curricular activities, essays, letters of recommendation, the quality of their high school, whether any relatives attended the University, athletic and socioeconomic status, in addition to race.

At first glance, policies designed to boost the number of underrepresented minorities may appear to be unfair to some prospective students, but many of the other factors used in admissions decisions clearly favor non-minority applicants. The University's consideration of the quality of an applicant's high school is obviously beneficial to students from wealthier and usually almost exclusively non-minority areas. The consideration of a student's curriculum will also be disadvantageous to most minority applicants, as they tend to be from less affluent areas where schools seldom have many, if any, of the advanced placement courses the University values highly in its admissions decisions. Alumni relationships favor non-minority applicants, as their parents and other family members are far more likely to have attended the University.

Standardized tests also often work against minority applicants, who are far less likely to have the money for preparatory courses and retests. Many minority students with less impressive high school curriculums and SAT or ACT scores as some non-minority students' are just as intelligent and qualified to attend the University. It must be recognized that these students have been denied the educational opportunities available to other students throughout their lives.

The bigger socio-economic picture

One of the main reasons children tend to stay in the same socioeconomic class as their parents is that they are brought up in our sharply segregated secondary education system. The richest kids get the best schools and the most opportunities and the poorest kids get the poorest schools and are shut out of almost every educational opportunity available. Growing up in a poor neighborhood and having no option but attending a substandard school should not disqualify an applicant. The obstacles they have had to face need to be recognized when determining if they have the capacity to be successful at this university.

Critics of using race in admissions often point to states such as Texas, where consideration of race in college admissions has been ended, but diversity has been maintained to some extent, as proof that race need not be considered by colleges. Texas accomplishes this by requiring that public Universities automatically accept applicants who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school class.

This is poor substitute for the method it replaced because it leaves schools without the ability actually make any judgements about the ability of applicants. Factors such as an applicant's standardized test scores, student leadership, community service and other activities outside the classroom that demonstrate a student's skills have been taken off the table. Assessing the qualifications of an incredibly diverse group of applicants with drastically different experiences, accomplishments and demonstrated levels of ability has been reduced to a one-size-fits-all solution in Texas. The result is a more unfair system than the complex admissions process that includes consideration of race ever could be. Many students that did little outside the classroom or did not take challenging courses will be admitted over students who have demonstrated attributes valued by colleges but did not fall in the top ten percent of their class.

This system is also totally unworkable for judging graduate and professional school applicants, which are also not allowed to consider race in many places.

University's policy is worth defending

The admissions policies of the University as they currently exist may not be perfect, but they are as fair and effective as anyone knows how to make them and are vastly preferable to many other systems. These policies provide the University with both a diverse and highly qualified student body. Neither goal is sacrificed for the other. The University's use of race in its admissions decisions is necessary to maintain the best academic environment possible and it is not discriminatory. It merely acknowledges that race in this country affects what opportunities people have. That must be recognized for the best students to be found. If race is not considered in the University's admissions process, many applicants who are qualified will be rejected and the University's educational environment will be damaged for others through the admission of less well-qualified students.

Ours is not a color-blind society; one's race makes a difference in how people live and what chances they get. For the University to be forced by the courts to shut its eyes to this reality would be a grave injustice and seriously harm its ability to effectively educate its students.