OPINION & EDITORIAL
Affirmative-action decision a missed opportunity
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nicole Marklein:
- College Repulicans: Vote for four more years (November 2, 2004)
- Legislators: Override Doyle on conceal and carry (January 22, 2004)
- What is 'African American?' (January 29, 2004)
- Cultural differences run deep (February 4, 2004)
- A seasonal paradox (December 10, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Summer preview: Affirmative-action ruling (May 8, 2003)
- Affirmative action benefits everyone (January 24, 2003)
- Letters to the Editor - 2/15/02 (February 15, 2002)
- Go Aggies (February 1, 2005)
- A case about race (June 26, 2003)
by Nicole Marklein
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
Lately, I’ve noted my professors and TAs citing the recent University of Michigan affirmative-action case as an example of the discretionary powers that universities have in their admissions processes or to point out that different schools deal with this issue in a variety of ways. However, it seems these educators are hesitant to discuss this topic more in-depth, somewhat restricting a healthy dialogue.
The University of Wisconsin viewed the University of Michigan decision as support for its current practice of considering a student’s race when making admissions decisions. While the UW does not have specific admissions guidelines in place for admitting students of color, it does actively recruit these groups of students to help accomplish its goal of greater racial diversity on campus.
To do this, the UW takes into account all other admissions criteria such as GPA, ACT scores, rigor of course load, etc. and then looks at the student’s ethnicity and socioeconomic background.
Therefore, some students, faculty and administration proclaimed the University of Michigan verdict to be a “huge victory” for minority students here. I cannot help but see it as a glaring setback for minorities as well as for race relations, but I do not believe this based solely on the typical reasons that you may hear many conservatives draw on, and we’ve all heard them: that affirmative action isn’t fair for white students, it is actually reverse discrimination or that administrations should not be responsible for any injustice that their ancestors may have created in the past.
The court attempted to apply a quick legal band-aid instead of looking at the actual source of the wound: inequality. OK, so it did overturn one aspect of the University of Michigan’s admission process. The Supreme Court threw out the point system that the University of Michigan uses, saying that race shouldn’t carry as much weight as the 20 automatic points that this university had been awarding minority students. However, as long as universities continue to use race as even a small part of admission decisions, we will not be able to move past the inequality that these very institutions are trying to prevent.
Minority students are struggling to prove that they are as intelligent, creative and successful as other students if they are given the same opportunities. However, as long as imbalanced admissions practices continue to exist, minority students will continue to struggle. That is because right now, no matter how hard a student of color works to be admitted to a particular school, he or she can be criticized: “He only got in because he’s black” or “She’s Hispanic, so her grades don’t have to be as good as mine to be accepted.” It’s easy to see that our current situation is a far cry from equality.
Students of color should not have to constantly defend themselves and their accomplishments. It’s time for them to be seen as equals, and the only way to achieve this is to start treating them as equals. By using an identical admissions process for each and every student, members of society will have no basis for claims that certain students did not earn their way into the university.
The Supreme Court made the easy decision. Rather than think about how to really deal with the problem of racial discrimination for the long term, it decided to temporarily please minorities by using a quick fix for right now. In fact, this decision actually damages race relations even more. Though it is helping students of color get into college today, it is ensuring more discrimination for tomorrow.
By reaffirming that race is a credible aspect to consider when admitting students to college, the Court sent a message saying that despite years of hard work or a lot of talent, students need to be aware of how their race will affect their future. And didn’t civil rights leaders in the past envision a society whose members would be measured solely by their personal merit rather than by the color of their skin? We need to stop telling students that they are disadvantaged simply because their ancestors came from a particular region of the world.
How will this decision affect those who have really embraced racial diversity? The number of biracial children and families is constantly growing. Which race should be considered when making an admissions decision? The “white” side? The “black?” It is getting harder and harder to classify students according to one race or another. Many students can’t choose which ethnicity they want to identify them, and they shouldn’t have to.
Yes, the Supreme Court may have pleased the university and some minority students for now. However, don’t be surprised if, in the future, this case is viewed as a missed opportunity to improve race relations for our country.
Nicole Marklein (nmmarklein@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science.
