In favor of affirmative action

Imagine if you will that you're an admissions officer for one of the country's top universities. On your desk lie two files: one for Student A and one for Student B. After reviewing both applications you are quite impressed by the two files but unfortunately you've just been informed that the university can only accept one more student. What do you do? You look over their files again and ironically they are identical down to their SAT scores except for one factor: race. Student A is African-American and Student B is Caucasian.

Here is where the practice of affirmative action comes into play. To increase diversity at your institution you choose to admit student A. Is this wrong? Is this unfair? Well this is exactly what the Supreme Court is in the process of deciding. Last Tuesday the high court heard oral arguments from lawyers representing both the University of Michigan and three white applicants who were denied acceptance to the university's law school. The ruling, expected in June, will either uphold the validity of affirmative action as a means of ensuring diversity at various institutions around the nation, or it will abolish practices designed to give preferential treatment to students of color, women, and other under represented groups. The court's rulings may also result in a compromise of sorts: prohibiting the specific practices in question, while permitting other practices meant to increase diversity. Already schools such as Princeton University have cancelled affirmative action programs as a preemptory measure to protect other programs.

As a substitution to affirmative action the Bush administration favors policies which ensure that the top twenty percent of high school seniors are guaranteed placement in the state colleges if they choose to apply. An article recently published in the Boston Globe summarizing reports released by Harvard and Princeton dispels these programs as suitable alternatives. In fact the article reported that "In Florida less than one percent of the top graduates...needed the guarantee to gain admission because they satisfied normal admissions standards anyway." Although the Bush administration has argued for the country to adapt "race-neutral" policies, the current government fails to realize that without affirmative action this country will regress to an era of segregation. As recently as1992, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States v. Fordice that patterns of racial segregation were still present in the Mississippi public school system. Institutions such as the University of Texas and University of California at Berkeley have already eliminated affirmative action practices at their schools and the results are discouraging to say the least.

Minority enrollment at Berkeley dropped 83 percent while the University of Texas witnessed a 25 percent decrease in minority applications within the span of one year. These decreases can be attributed to a number of things but most important is the reality that many affirmative action policies are backed by specific financial aid programs.

After all, what good would it do to have these policies in place if a large percentage of the minority students offered acceptance could not afford to attend prestigious universities, although they often meet and exceed academic standards? So while the University of Texas (UT) may offer acceptance to a number of minorities, the institution is still prohibited from offering scholarships and financial aid packages previously associated with admissions practices deemed unfair.

Lino Graglia, a professor of law at UT, claims that "We only have affirmative action in institutions of higher education because blacks and Mexican-Americans are not academically competitive with whites." Wrong. We have affirmative action because minorities have never received equal and adequate access to quality education. Inequities in academic performance are a direct result of the earlier educational advantages available to whites. Many public schools are largely funded by local taxpayers in the surrounding community so inevitably schools in wealthy areas will produce better students while poorer neighborhoods will receive less funding, ultimately jeopardizing the quality of education provided. Unfortunately an overwhelming number of America's poor are people of color. Opponents of affirmative action can only argue the policy's unfairness when analyzed outside of its historical and social context.

Opponents argue that if Jewish and Asian-Americans can achieve economic growth without the aid of preferential programming then African-Americans should also be able to do so. How can this comparison be made when African-Americans have endured over 300 years of legalized discrimination, 245 of which were spent in captivity? Until the abolishment of Jim Crow laws in the early 1960s African-Americans suffered countless injustices due to a legal system condoning these practices. Although progress has been made, thirty years of affirmative action cannot possibly undo all this damage and level the playing field. Also to compare African-Americans with Jews, in this instance, is unfair seeing as European Jews are recognized as part of the white majority.

Many also worry that affirmative action will essentially replace white students and workers with less qualified minorities. Statistically this argument is weak. In 1994 the Department of Commerce reported that less than 2 million blacks were unemployed and that there were more than 100 million employed white civilians. Assuming that the actual proportions have not drastically changed within the past few years, even if every unemployed African-American were to displace a white worker, less than two percent of the white population would be affected.

Lastly, contrary to what others may think, the issue of affirmative action is not always so black and white. If affirmative action is abolished policies like the one regarding legacies may also be challenged. After all, legacies are admitted under the same premise. As Chris Khan of the Boston Globe reports, although legacies are given "no guarantee that they will get in...they are treated as 'plus' applications, the same distinction given to minority students." It's ironic that President Bush opposes the race based policies currently being examined by the Supreme Court while he himself was admitted to Yale as a third generation legacy.

The future of affirmative action is hard to call but public response indicates that, with approximately 80 briefs (out of 100) filed in support of the University of Michigan, America is willing to own up to its past ills and prejudices in the name of equality and justice.

Shantell Richardson is a senior majoring in English.