OPINION & EDITORIAL
A case about race
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jeff Pertl:
- United Council: What $1.35 buys you (April 8, 2003)
- Students still willing to pay their fair share, 18 percent is too much (March 10, 2003)
- Ed board makes headlines by opposing everything (January 31, 2002)
Related Stories:
- Affirmative action aids UW (December 8, 2006)
- Summer preview: Affirmative-action ruling (May 8, 2003)
- We need a second opinion (February 13, 2007)
- The case for affirmative action (April 3, 2003)
- UW must eliminate race factor (December 7, 2006)
by Jeff Pertl
Thursday, June 26, 2003
In a landmark victory for all students, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action is both constitutional and necessary so long as the process is narrowly tailored and doesn’t consider race as the definitive factor. Reaffirming the principles of Bakke v. The University of California Board of Regents, the Court recognized the value of a diverse society and workforce and ruled there is a compelling state interest in fostering diversity. Based on this criterion, the University of Michigan’s undergraduate point system was struck down as too rigid and mechanical, while Michigan’s law school individualized admissions approach was upheld.
Debunking a common affirmative action myth, the Court asserted that all of the accepted applicants were more than qualified. The fundamental issue with the point system wasn’t that it admitted under-qualified applicants, but rather that it was too racially skewed, making admission virtually guaranteed for qualified applicants of color. The constitutional issue here is one of process, not principle.
Interestingly, the Court went even further than in Bakke, arguing that beyond rectifying past and ongoing discrimination, there is genuine value in diversity for universities, businesses, government, and the military. We live in an increasingly multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and global world. Numerous business studies show that diverse work teams resolve problems more quickly and creatively. Additionally, beyond understanding the importance of global trade, businesses recognize that people of color, women and the LGBT community are growing markets that are essential to future success. The bottom line is that we need to recognize the increasingly diverse world around us.
The Supreme Court has resolved the constitutional issue of affirmative action for now, but where does that leave the rest of America? When it comes to affirmative action we have a split Supreme Court, a divided public and a fence-riding President, begging the question: What was this case really about? And where do we go from here?
In the media, classrooms and the courts, the Michigan cases have been made out to be about a lot of different things. Some said it was about the principle of affirmative action; others contended it was a case about university admissions. A few argued it was about the Constitution. But above all of those things, it was about race.
Throughout the debate, I didn’t hear anyone talking about the tremendous impact affirmative action has had on white women, who now make up over 50 percent of colleges students and are increasingly represented in the highest levels of corporate and political America.
And while we talked about ‘factors’ in admissions, no one talked about the role of athletics in the admissions process. No one mentioned legacy students who were accepted because their parents are alumni. I didn’t hear one statement about children of big donors getting accepted at prestigious schools. And no one talked about how schools consider national and statewide geography when developing their freshman classes.
No, all that people talked about was race.
In some ways, maybe that was good. We need to talk more about race in this country—and I don’t mean rehashing tired political rhetoric. We need to be talking about why universities struggle to recruit and retain students of color and why it is taking students of color longer to graduate than their white counterparts. We never talk about the barriers that people of color are facing and what we should be doing about it.
The Court was pretty clear that building genuine diversity isn’t a formulaic process of quotas and point systems. Instead, it takes a commitment to engage in a diverse and ever changing world. For the University of Wisconsin, that means affirmative action in admissions, pre-college programming, and campus events like the student shadow day.
For students that could mean studying abroad, attending campus cultural events, or taking ethnic studies classes—all of which are important because they build a more diverse campus experience. However, those are also the things we always talk about on campus when we talk about diversity, and I can only imagine how your eyes glaze over as you read this paragraph thinking I am just another lefty preaching about diversity.
Racial equality isn’t going to come about just from Supreme Court rulings, and it won’t happen because of politicians or activists. It starts with us making a commitment to diversity in our daily lives—meeting new people, talking about difficult issues and learning to appreciate differences.
The reality is that moving forward on race issues in this country is going to take hard work and proactive steps. We can’t erase 250 years of systematic discrimination overnight. Just as the Court reaffirmed its commitment to diversity, we have an obligation to do the same. Affirmative action is not simple or universal answer to America’s racial problems, but it is a good step forward. Now we have the responsibility to take the next step.
Jeff Pertl (president@unitedcouncil.net) is the president of United Council and a 2002 UW-Madison graduate.
