I wish to respond to your editorial board's
Wednesday, April 16 column "A Case for Action," in which you argue in favor of the University of Michigan's use of race as a criterion for admission. Your editorial states, "Michigan's assignment of a point value based on the color of undergraduate applicants' skin -- African-American, Hispanic and Native American applicants automatically receive 20 points on a 150 point scale -- is fundamentally unappealing and calls into question the core goals of the Civil Rights movement." Stating this, you then try to gloss it over by pointing out that "for massive public universities that want to provide opportunities for minorities while offering a top quality education, it's also the best option currently available." Unfortunately the former statement is the crux of the argument. The kind of affirmative action the University of Michigan has instituted is beyond fundamentally unappealing -- it's overtly-illegal racial discrimination.
To argue in favor of affirmative action because it is the "best option available" for ensuring diversity is intellectually dishonest, particularly (although I am not saying this is the case here) when those arguing claim to be liberally inclined. If one wishes to read and obey the law as it is written, Article VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly states, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
If one wishes, as the Editorial Board did, to take the consequentialist bent and argue that affirmative action is simply an ugly means to a necessary end, then I ask what prevents us from flaunting any law we see fit, if there is a good possibility of a positive outcome? Should police use racial profiling in the hope that it may lead to a reduction in crime? What prevents us from allowing discrimination due to race in other aspects of the law? If a white criminal and an Hispanic criminal are brought before the same judge, for committing the same crime under the same circumstances, should they be given different sentences? Any reasonable person who respects the U.S. Constitution, and especially any liberal, would have to respond, "of course not."
Furthermore, I am not even sure that the University of Michigan's concept of "diversity," which was not addressed but simply a priori assumed to be a something good by the editorial board, accurately captures the characteristics of diversity that make it important enough for institutions strive for it. In fact, the affirmative action process is constructed in such a way as to guarantee that this is not the case. I am very much in favor of diversity. Diversity of experience, of ideas, of aspirations and of knowledge is essential to a successful liberal arts education. Does affirmative action provide this kind of diversity? No, it says diversity is created by one's skin color, it says that underneath it all we are not really the same, it says that of two adopted brothers, one white and one black, who grew up in the same environment and had the same education, the black brother should be privileged because of the color of his skin.
If you really want diversity, look at an applicant's socio-economic background. You may find that race is correlated with these characteristics of diversity; however, I do not believe that race is diversity. Some may object, as the editorial board did, that large institutions such as University of Michigan, "as a public institution [of] over 24,000 undergraduates strong," don't have the luxury of going through this process. This is simply assumed to be true by the editorial board. However, if one looks at the entire list of criteria for which the Michigan admissions office awards points, one would find the admissions staff still had time to read tens of thousands of essays, awarding three points if they were outstanding, as well as determine if an applicant was socio-economically disadvantaged, and award them 20 points.
While some believe that Dartmouth, and other private institutions, should still be allowed to continue discriminating in their admissions process, this is not the case. Dartmouth's tax-exempt status, not withstanding the millions of dollars received every year in federal grants, should require it to comply with federal statutes such as Article VI of the Civil Rights Act or face dire economic consequences. It is hypocritical that we force private institutions to follow some anti-discrimination laws, such as Title IX, while allowing them to ignore others.
Those who support affirmative action are fighting a battle in favor of discrimination, which currently, and certainly in the long run, does far more harm than good. Their time would be better spent, as an editorial in the Economist stated, "fixing the real place where discrimination occurs: woefully inadequate education for huge numbers of poor minority students."
In writing their decision regarding admissions at the University of Michigan, the Supreme Court should heed the wording of the Constitution, forbid discrimination in public life and allow Americans to live in a manner that truly reflects the ideals of American democracy and equality.
