While I rarely even read articles published in the Primary Source because of its conservative views, I was upset and appalled in reading a recent piece titled "Ideas, Not Colors," by Matt Senko. I realize that in this day an age, many people use freedom of speech to voice their opinions on matters that they know nothing about and have chosen not to educate themselves on the facts of the matter at hand. This is what Matt Senko did, and he misuses the entire concept.
If the history of affirmative action is carefully looked at, one could discover that it was initially set in place for the benefit of women because "historically women have been the victims of discrimination." "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 in 1967, provided the initial legal basis for affirmative action for women in employment in the United States." One of the myths in society today is that affirmative action was originally setup for minority groups, and by reading Matt Senko's article you can see that he is an ardent believer of this myth.
Senko argued that, "The admission of minorities into a school does not inherently add an element of diversity to its student body." He mentioned that Judge Stanley Marcus, one of the justices who ruled in opposition of the affirmative action in an Aug. 27 Court of Appeals decision. Marcus felt that a white applicant would have a greater influence in "creating a diverse student body" than a non-white applicant.
These opinions neglect that some white people in present day society can go through life having not been exposed once to a culture outside of their own. Consequently, they can go through life attending private schools, public schools, or even in the place in which they reside without having seen a minority. Unfortunately, this way of living limits ones perception and thinking. This is never the case for any African American, or any minority for that matter, whether in society today, yesterday, or 150 years ago. A minority goes through life encountering various types of people everywhere they go, whether it be school, the workplace, or in everyday life; it is an inescapable issue.
So how then can a white applicant be more qualified in being exposed to "different cultures, outlook, and experiences" when their outlook on life is based primarily on "the privileged white experience?" In his article, Matt questions the term diversity as to whether it should be defined simply by "color or race and be purchased at the expense of rejecting more qualified students of the 'undiverse' race."
When affirmative action is used in the admissions policy of schools across the country, students chosen by affirmative action guidelines are not chosen solely because of their "race," but it is indeed a factor that must be used in promoting it. Affirmative action was adopted because those of a different race, although qualified, are not accepted into schools of higher learning. They are just as educated and intelligent as any applicants who are accepted into any college or university.
Matt feels that Tufts should not "lower their standards in order to accept minority students." Everyone accepted into Tufts, Harvard, or any institution of higher learning is accepted based on the same criteria. I would think that, in admitting students into their institution, the admissions office would base acceptance on the same intellectual caliber that all students are accepted to uphold their reputation. In my opinion, he discredits every minority at Tufts for all their hard work, because he believes minorities are accepted solely by race. If this statement was true, why is Tufts still struggling to increase their representation of minority students?
In an article written in The Observer, Pan-African Alliance issued a statement which affirmed that "the number of black students on this campus has declined steadily since 1980 by over thirty percent." Law School Dean Jeffrey S. Lehman from the University of Michigan agreed that indeed "race 'matters more than it should' in this country, but 'that's not something created by our admissions policy' but the legacy and continuation of racial injustice in American society." As a result, affirmative action is needed to uphold the ideals that America was founded on.
Constantly throughout his article, Senko made ludicrous statements, one after the other. He assumed wrongly that students are accepted into Tufts because of race and also that they are academically incompetent. When I read this, I believed strongly that this uneducated freshman must walk around Tufts believing that every minority must be unqualified and inept. But this is not true. The admission policy at Tufts prohibits the use of no quotas because they are illegal. Instead as written in the Admissions and Enrollment Meeting Notes on Feb. 1, 1999, the Admissions Office at Tufts University is "actively striving to increase the number of students of color to achieve a more diverse population [and] pool of candidates who choose to attend Tufts."
When Tufts utilizes its affirmative action policy, it does so because there are minorities across the country who are equally qualified as their white counterparts, but due to social inequality, are looked over despite their credentials. Unfortunately, even though Tufts actively seeks students of color, there is still a significant number of students who choose not to attend Tufts for other reasons, despite the value of a Tufts education.
In the University Record, The American Bar Association quoted that "Diversity is essential to fulfilling the bar's paramount purpose or providing (legal) representation to all; furthermore, diversity is fundamental to fostering and maintaining the public's perception that our legal system is fair, unbiased and inclusive, thereby preserving and enhancing the public's trust and confidence in our system of government." In using this statement within the world of law, how can a white lawyer relate to their black client when they have each gone through life in two different worlds? If lawyers only represented a portion of society, how can society view the legal system as just if there are no lawyers to represent their cultural group?
Likewise, many students in attendance at Tufts aspire to be lawyers. If they do not represent the society or at least understand the cultural outlook of those in their communities, how exactly does one expect to "cultivate acceptance and respect for cultural differences among the members of this community" and produce a fair legal system. If Senko did his homework, the University of Michigan is very selective in its acceptance of students. There is "no evidence of lower performance by Blacks compared with other groups" although as Matt stated, Tufts lowers "their standards in accepting minority groups."
A study by Prof. Richard Lempert of all minority graduates of the University of Michigan since 1970 "found no significant difference between their graduation rates, bar passage rates, career achievements or job satisfaction than those of whites." These rates are concurrent with the use of affirmative action. In addition, last year University of Michigan "rejected 65 black applicants and 62 percent of Caucasian applicants." These facts prove that affirmative action in no way lowers the standards of any institution nor does it show a considerable gap of acceptance between Blacks and Whites. Likewise, just because Tufts actively seeks students of color to attend Tufts does not mean that those that are not of color are put at a disadvantage.
Adwoa Asare-Kwakye is a sophomore majoring in child development.
