Diversity a necessity

President Bacow joined Harvard last week in supporting the University of Michigan's position in its Supreme Court cases to be heard later this year. At stake is the possibility of a stricter definition by the court that will further define what kinds of affirmative action policies are legitimate.

Michigan's assertion that its point system _ where minority students are given bonus points toward a composite admissions ranking _ does not constitute a quota is valid. According to the last relevant Supreme Court ruling, some degree of affirmative action is desirable, but not to the point where the optimal percentage of minority students is set at some fixed number.

However, a point system is merely an attempt to quantify values that are important in maintaining the University's quality and diversity. Points can also be assigned based on family legacy, life experience, and extracurricular skills or interests.

A determination by the Supreme Court that Michigan's point assessment is unconstitutional would effectively change nothing about the school's admissions procedure, since the scores are merely representative of its enrollment goals. If the admissions officers know generally how much Michigan values championship wrestlers, major donors' children, minorities from the Bronx, and all other human qualities, then it can make the same decisions without explicitly assigning any points.

Though Tufts doesn't use a point system in its undergraduate admissions office, it is not very different from Michigan. The admissions office realizes that qualified minority students _ just like qualified students from underrepresented states _ are an asset to the diversity of the University. It isn't enough to simply admit the brightest applicants around. A good college experience needs to be based on the collective individuality of its student body.