OPINION & EDITORIAL
Affirmative action aids UW
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Summer preview: Affirmative-action ruling (May 8, 2003)
- A case about race (June 26, 2003)
- Letters to the Editor - 2/15/02 (February 15, 2002)
- No place for race (January 18, 2007)
- Holistic admissions necessary for minority progress (October 3, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, December 8, 2006
The University Regents is one of the few state institutions heading in the right direction in dealing with the problem of this state's lackluster racial diversity. Furthermore, their implementation of affirmative action policies is both constitutional and practically justified. Their analysis on the importance of diversity is supported by multiple institutions and recognized as a compelling governmental interest by the Supreme Court. It is in the best interest of UW students to allow the regents to continue their Affirmative Action program, and it would also be beneficial for the rest of the state to follow the university systems lead.
Relying on Justice O'Connors dicta in Grutter v. Bollinger, providing that institutions should be receding from Affirmative Action within a 25 year period is a poor assessment of the Supreme Courts findings. The Justice's statement carries no precedential weight as it was mere dicta and provided no bearing on the analysis of the case. Justification for the use of Affirmative Action laws relies simply and wholly on a two part test. The first part is whether a state has a compelling interest in the application of its law. The second part necessitates that the means used to implement that interest are narrowly tailored. The Court in Grutter upheld that the Michigan Law School affirmative action system provided a "compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body." It further found that the individual assessments done by the admissions board provided a narrowly tailored means to achieve the government's aim. The Wisconsin Regents apparently plan to entertain this individual assessment approach, and thus follow the letter of the law set by the Supreme Court.
However, the federal judiciary wasn't the only national institution supporting these types of race-based assessments. Multiple institutions filed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court supporting the use of affirmative action and touting its wide spread benefits. The U.S. Military stated that "highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps…is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." Major American businesses stated "that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through wide exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints." Clearly the Wisconsin Regents justification for the use of affirmative action expands beyond mere legal viability towards a need to appropriately prepare the University of Wisconsin students.
In addition, the state of Wisconsin is one of the places where such a need for diversity is paramount. In other states like California and Texas, the states have a natural diverse population. Although the need for affirmative action is arguably necessary in those states because of continued racial inequalities, the natural population make-up provides a diversity floor in which the state can not possibly drop below. This State has one of the most highly homogenous Caucasian populations in all the union, and as such has no diversity floor. Thus, the need for race-based affirmative action programs is much more necessary here than any other state. In a world where "exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints" is a "skill needed in today's increasingly global marketplace," the loss of affirmative action would be unbelievably damaging to the strength of our educational institutions.
The need and length for the use of affirmative action may differ from state to state. In some states, where the population is more diverse, affirmative action programs may be necessary for only 25 years. In Wisconsin, it is clear it will take much longer. Nevertheless, the constitutional and practical assessment of when Affirmative Action will no longer be necessary should be determined by the success of diversity initiatives and not by arbitrary timelines.
Kene Okocha is the President of the Student Bar Association of the University of Wisconsin Law School. His views are not necessarily representative of those of the Student Bar Association. UW-Law School has an estimated 28% minority population. It has 32nd place ranking among law schools, according to the U.S. News and World Report.
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 7:48am):
"This State has one of the most highly homogenous Caucasian populations in all the union, and as such has no diversity floor. Thus, the need for race-based affirmative action programs is much more necessary here than any other state."
Kene, please introduce me to your dealer.
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 10:43am):
Yeah, let's bus in a few hundred thousand minorites into the state (whether they would prefer to be here or not) to make Wisconsin more racially diverse. To hell with freedom of choice!
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 11:56am):
Maybe global warming will help. Balance might improve if it never went below 40 degrees?
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 12:21pm):
I didn't know that the University and the Board of Regents were responsible for ensuring that Wisconsin maintained a predetermined Caucasian to minority ratio. The questions are, what is that ratio, and who gets to determine it? I just love the hypocrisy!
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 12:58pm):
Kene gave an analysis of the legality aspect of affirmative action but his article does not address why affirmative action is the best policy to ensure diversity. We should first examine what the goals of affirmative action are and what would be the best way to achieve those goals.
If we are truly aimed at bringing in disadvantages students shouldn't we give more weight to minorities coming from inner city schools than those from the suburbs? Should skin color be the major factor or should we use some other criteria?
The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action is not unconstitutional but that does not mean the UW system should use affirmative action in its goal to become more diverse.
-fellow law student
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 2:04pm):
Maybe the Caucasian to minority ratio would be better if Wisconsin had been a slave state? Yeah, that would have been better.
Anonymous (December 8, 2006 @ 4:01pm):
Great rebuttal. You do a lot better job of avoiding sarcasm than the above posters.
Anonymous (December 9, 2006 @ 12:48am):
The goal of Affirmative Action is to create diversity not help underprivileged or disadvantaged. That's why in Affrimative Action's use race is seen as one of many factors, like life experience, and geographic location. The purpose is to aid all students not just minorities.
Now, I believe we should help the aspiring disadvantaged student as well; however, I recoginize that Affirmative Action programs don't do this and are not designed to.
The best way to look at affirmative action is as a school adminstrator's tool used to better the schools learning environment. Like controlling class size or balancing in-state and out-of-state students. Yet creating smaller class sizes conducive to learning, and allowing out of state students to come in to garner larger tuition both arguably result in the elimination of qualified candidates for the benefit of the entire student body. Diversity initiatives work within this same vein. Nevertheless, the need for diversity, like small class sizes, and in-state preferences are necessary to adequately prepare our future students.
Anonymous (December 9, 2006 @ 12:11pm):
Can someone explain to me diversity for diversity's sake like this writer is proposing? Is Wisconsin worse off because we don't have as many minorities as California or Texas? I don't think so. We would be worse off if we were actively trying to turn away minorities, but this isn't happening. The author of this article is kind of an idiot.
Anonymous (December 9, 2006 @ 7:43pm):
Diversity is about life experiences and diverse backgrounds and not skin color. We can try to look more "diverse" by using race as an admissions factor but it won't change the true diversity of campus.
Why do we have to ask the race question in admissions? Why not have a short essay asking, "How will you bring a unique perspective campus?" Wouldn't that be a better way to bring true diversity?
Admitting more minority students is really about the apperance of diversity. How far are we going to go with this social engineering? Asian students are over-represented, should universities admit less of them? How many white students from diverse backgrounds will be admitted?
Anonymous (December 10, 2006 @ 11:57am):
Changing demographics are redefining "diversity" here in the southwest corner of Texas where Hispanics--virtually all Mexican-Americans--make up the bulk of the population. For example, El Paso, a city of about 750,00, its surrounding suburbs, and school districts are more than 80-percent Hispanic, yet local new media continue to publish or broadcast stories boasting of the region's "growing diversity." (Presumably, the area will become 100-percent diverse once it becomes 100-percent Hispanic.) The University of Texas-El Paso, sometimes referred to as "Las Universidad," continues its Hispanic "outreach" programs even though the student population is already about 80-percent Hispanic--all in the name of greater diversity. As you might imagine, support for affirmative action programs remain strong; once the area's African-Americans, Asian-Americans, American Indian, and non-Hispanic females are added to the mix, about 95 percent of the population is eligible for preference programs, which primarily benefit members of the middle and upper economic classes. The area's high rate of intermarriage between "Anglos" and Hispanics produces children of mixed heritage who, no matter their economic status, blond hair and blue eyes ((think Cameron Diaz), are fully eligible for affirmative action preferences. (An Hispanic grandmother or Hispanic grandfather or enough to qualify for preference programs.)
I think most Americans would continue to support affirmative action programs for the segment of society--African-Americans--which suffers most grievously the effects of racial prejudices, but not affirmative action programs that benefit all but a portion of the society--non-Hispanic white males--who make up an increasingly small percentage of the population. Affirmative action programs based on economic rather than racial status would produce fairer results.
Anonymous (December 10, 2006 @ 9:32pm):
"--non-Hispanic white males--who make up an increasingly small percentage of the population."
Soon enough they will be the only real minority. What then? Males are already under-represented at colleges. When can we expect affirmative action to redress this wrong?
Anonymous (December 10, 2006 @ 11:25pm):
This is a purely pedantic article. Everbody discriminates. It's human nature. People discriminate against fat people, ugly people, short people, &cetera. Do we need affirmative action for lazy people too? No, as proof, Kene did just fine at the Simonds Center without doing much of anything.
