This campus likes to have giant arguments over the most asinine things. As someone who called for an economic intifada against the city’s greatest purveyor of birthday mugs, I can attest to that fact.

And while I sometimes take delight in blowing small things out of proportion, it’s quite another when we nearly come to blows over an issue.

Take the nearly three-hour dogpile that took place on WSUM 91.7 last Tuesday. Daily Cardinal columnist Andrew Carpenter sat in the WSUM studios for a gauntlet of chastisement, white privilege lectures and a choir calling for more “facts.” After all, the facts will set you free. That’s the quote, right?

Well, they’re right about one thing: A few things needed to be clarified about our admissions policy. It’s not a quota system, it’s not a points system and it doesn’t involve shooting white students dead to open up spaces. It’s a holistic admissions system that takes into account the intangibles: personal history, challenges faced, socioeconomic status and, yes, race. That’s right — UW considers applicants, at least somewhat, like human beings.

But race is the sticking point. Never mind that even former UW Chancellor John Wiley said he had not seen a case where a black student was admitted over a white student on the basis of the race category. The idea of race on that application scares people. White people, mostly. After all, if the color of your skin is considered a factor in admissions, how can we know if we’re being chosen for actual academic ability?

First off, there are some dumb kids in this school. Of every color and creed. That, more than the race factor, should make you question whether your academic prowess is why you got in.

Second, none of us really know how the admissions process works. All the university will say is that its process is “much more human” than formulaic. Now, while “it depends” is never a great answer, would you rather have admissions based on a score calculated from a list of sometimes meaningless numbers built up to determine your adequacy? There’s a phrase for that — it’s called the BCS rankings.

But there is one thing that bugs me about the inclusion of race in holistic admissions — I have no doubt that race has a profound influence on someone’s track in life. But shouldn’t that be judged by a person’s personal statement? If someone overcame discrimination because he were Latino, that would come across in their statement.

But if someone happened to grow up in an affluent household, didn’t mention anything about his race affecting his life and then marks that he’s black on a form — why should it matter? If they truly feel the barriers placed in front of them had nothing to do with their race and they indicate they’ve not really struggled because of it, it doesn’t seem like we should consider it.

But I know the naysayers will point to race-based criteria and minority enrollment and say it’s necessary. Holistic admissions are necessary.

Look at the number of ethnic minorities enrolled at this university in the last decade — the increase is at least mildly impressive: In 1999, there were 2,583 minority undergrads, not including international students. That comprised about 9 percent of the undergraduate body.

By 2008, that number stood at 3,765, or 12.9 percent of the student body. Over that period, total undergraduate population increased by about a thousand people. Now, you could argue the race category resulted in this 3 percent increase. But then again, when holistic admissions at UW-Madison started nearly two decades ago, minority enrollment didn’t exactly explode. Five percent over 20 years may be an achievement, but not if urgency is any concern.

When the increase is that incremental and involves creating a multifaceted system of criteria for admission, it’s worth questioning whether minority enrollment increases have to do directly with the race criteria.

But did we need to have a campuswide seizure over this? This has been going on for 20 years!

Want to debate something of merit? Talk about Posse or PEOPLE programs and the shifting graduation rates (and funding) of those programs. Or the Witte multicultural floor’s effect on campus climate. Or the ASM Diversity Committee’s lack of effect on anyone or anything. Or any number of attempts at affirmative action and the related support network that can be influenced by student opinion.

If you want to pick apart the appropriateness or usefulness of affirmative action, let’s discuss those topics.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. After all, he has no control over you once you’re here.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a first-year graduate student in the School Journalism & Mass Communication.