OPINION & EDITORIAL
UW must eliminate race factor
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
- High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
- Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
- Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- We need a second opinion (February 13, 2007)
- Affirmative action aids UW (December 8, 2006)
- Summer preview: Affirmative-action ruling (May 8, 2003)
- Still Murky (July 3, 2003)
- A case about race (June 26, 2003)
by Ryan Masse
Thursday, December 7, 2006
In writing for the majority in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor found the University of Michigan Law School's use of affirmative action as part of its admissions process to be constitutional, so long as it is narrowly tailored and not reliant on a quota system (as was the downfall for Grutter's companion case, Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the court struck down Michigan's undergraduate bonus point system for minority applicants).
Ms. O'Connor qualified her answer, however, by conceding "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time." Specifically, she identified 25 years as the point at which "the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today" — in essence tucking a "this court decision will self-destruct" disclaimer into the end of Part III of the opinion. Naturally, one would take this warning of affirmative action's non-infinite shelf life as a sign that such policies should slowly be weaned off as their necessity diminishes over the next quarter century.
Why, then, is the University of Wisconsin System, almost four years later, chartering a course in the opposite direction of the one outlined by Ms. O'Connor?
I refer to a proposal on the Board of Regents' agenda as they begin their monthly meeting today that would lessen the importance of class rank and increase the weight of life experience, special talents and, most ominously, race, in making admissions decisions. The proposal, intended to affect all UW System schools and modeled after the approach already used by UW-Madison, has often been referred to as an "individualistic" or "holistic" admissions method.
No matter what it's called, it's troubling. Exactly how much emphasis the regents would like to put on race is unclear, and any benchmark indeed would likely be unconstitutional per Gratz. But it does seem clear the intention is to swing the pendulum toward race playing an increased role.
To be sure, the regents have insisted strong academic qualifications will remain the most important factor in gaining admission to UW schools. Applications will be assessed on an individual basis to consider all criteria, abilities and characteristics of an applicant. In reading sound clips from the regents since they proposed the new admissions policy this summer, it is clear the board's members are well-versed in the Grutter decision, steeping their quotes in its verbiage: The plan is a "holistic" approach considering race as "one factor of many."
On the surface, that doesn't sound too bad. And for the most part, it isn't. The intended result of the program — a diverse student body boasting unique experiences and skills — is something very few would argue is not a worthy goal.
But differences of opinion emerge as to whether any means justify such a laudable end. For the regents, the inclination seems to be yes. If their heterogeneous student body is crafted through abject discrimination — the kind prohibited in spirit by the Fourteenth Amendment, if not by law for several more decades (though possibly sooner, given Samuel Alito's ascension to the high court in place of Ms. O'Connor) — then so be it.
And one is left to wonder why. It is not as if there are no alternatives to the regressive race-based approach the regents are considering. Texas A&M has boosted minority enrollment by using minority alumni as recruiters, as well as introducing hundreds of scholarships for first-generation college students, a group with heavy minority representation. Without considering race, these initiatives resulted in double-digit percentage gains in minority freshman enrollment in 2004 and 2005.
Similarly, the University of Washington, prohibited by law from taking race into account, looks at "family income, number in family, parents' educational level [and] high school free lunch percent." Economic-based criteria such as these will accomplish an end result similar to that of race-based policies. And so long as it is narrowly tailored, it ensures those who truly are disadvantaged — as opposed to those belonging to a group historically oppressed (but not necessarily so individually) — receive a fair acknowledgment of the barriers they have had to overcome. The regents' proposal does seem to put an increased emphasis on income along with race, to be fair.
Or UW could rely solely on merit, which would not confine the school solely to grades and test scores. The life experiences and special abilities that UW says it wants to weigh more heavily do reflect non-academic skills that may predict collegiate and life success. It's just that race holds no place in discussions of merit — unless the topic is sunburn-prevention ability, there is nothing meritorious in one skin pigmentation over another.
The message the Supreme Court sent in Grutter was clear: If your school uses race in making admissions decisions, and does so without a quota or points system, you can keep doing what you're doing. But know you will have to discontinue it in the not-altogether distant future.
UW would be wise to realize the case was anything but an invitation to implementing a new race-based affirmative action program in higher education.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is the editorial board chairman of The Badger Herald.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 5:26am):
Yes, let's get rid of race-based affirmative action, and while we're at why don't we get rid of my-parents-were-alumni affirmative action, out-of-state affirmative action, athlete-affirmative action, my-dad-paid-for-the-new-building affirmative action, and all the other types of preferential treatment?
UW should only eliminate the race factor when the rest of the nation eliminates the race factor, which currently gives preferential treatment to whites in housing, hiring, education, and every other institution.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 7:53am):
To make UW "race neutral", I think we should cover all students with white sheets. When you wear white sheets, you have to be concerned about rain collecting on your shoulders and soaking through your sheet. The best way to eliminate this problem is by wearing pointy, cone-like hats. Although the face mask portion of the hat seems harsh on warm fall days, you'll thank Buckingham Badger for his wisdom in mid-January.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 10:17am):
I whole-heartedly agree with this article and I'm a student of color. Affirmative Action is discrimination based on race. Aren't we supposed to be against discrimination???!
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 10:17am):
Affirmative Action based on race is racism! Base affirmative action on socio-economic status!
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 10:29am):
Great article.
I think UW can boost minority enrollment and retention if it uses race-neutral factors such as the ones listed in the article. The goals of affirmative action are noble but the method is extremely flawed.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 11:30am):
Why don't we concentrate on fixing the totally fucked public high schools in urban centers like Milwaukee. That is where the problem is, not in the admissions process! Then the poor minorities living there will actually be *academically qualified* to be accepted to college. What a concept!
Of course to do that, some elected officials might actually have to condemn current black urban culture and parenting. That would be political suicide so that ain't gonna happen.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 12:20pm):
You cannot propose an end to affirmative action without simultaneously proposing a massive improvement in inner-city public education much to the chagrin of people who are still in their Ayn Rand phase.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 2:22pm):
Hey Ryan Masse,
What do all of you anti-affirmative action folks actually know about an equal playing field?
Your crowd is always trying to take race out of consideration when it's convenient, but I think we all know that it IS something YOU consider when you're walking down the street.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 2:29pm):
Co-sign on improving the public schools.
In the meantime (or, let's be honest, as an alternative to something that will never get done) I think economic affirmative action is the way to go.
Thanks to the shameful race relation problems in this country, you're still going to get a hugely disproportionate number of non-whites that meet the economic criteria. But you'll be able to exclude the non-whites from the suburbs who don't add any real "diversity" beyond their appearance.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 2:43pm):
"Your crowd is always trying to take race out of consideration when it's convenient, but I think we all know that it IS something YOU consider when you're walking down the street."
Only when I'm alone.
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 3:25pm):
Your average immigrant from Africa does better in the USA than the average white person. A lot of immigrants (including my Mother) come here with no money and no English and they manage to own a home in 8 years after their arrival even though they start with less than minimum wages. So this isn't the dept generation it's the self-pity generation.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=204880&tag=nl.e550
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 9:45pm):
Here's a black guy who has an idea how to solve the problem:
KAMAU KAMBON, FORMER PROFESSOR: And they're monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is how we are going to exterminate white people, because that, in my estimation, is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off of the face of the planet to solve this problem.
That is former North Carolina State University professor Kamau Kambon who made that now famous comment that, quote, "all white people should be exterminated".
Anonymous (December 7, 2006 @ 10:54pm):
Sounds like sarcasm deprived of its meaning when put in type.
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 11:26am):
Somehow, "race holds no place in discussions of merit," yet socioeconomic factors do according to Ryan Masse. I'm not sure either of these factors have anything to do with merit. However, throwing these factors into the calculus that is college admissions turns the process from one epitomizing cold indifference to one that embraces the realities of America--realities that Kene Okocha highlights in his opinion article published on Friday, Dec 8.
Supreme Court precedent is not policy. It is a statement of what nine lawyers think the meaning of equal in the 14th Amendment is. Justice O'Connor's statement of what might not be necessary in 25 years does not imply that legislatures should positively take steps to remove Affirmative Action policies within the next 25 years. Instead, it's a statement grounded in realism. Affirmative Action IS NECESSARY as a means of accomplishing a goal that maybe someday will no longer be needed in the US. But until that day comes, no matter what the Cleo-like predictions of Justice O'Connor imply, it is up to the policymakers to decide what is needed. So, right on Board of Regents! You are the experts on matters of UW policy. Do your job, and if that means using Affirmative Action as a means of combating the devastatingly low number of minorities in the UW System, the Supreme Court said you have all the plus-factor counting power in the world.
