On Thursday, the Bush administration urged the Supreme Court to
hold race and ethnic-based admissions policies unconstitutional,
saying race-neutral policies should be used as a means to achieve
diversity at universities instead.
The University of Michigan, whose affirmative action policy is
the subject of the court case, uses an admissions formula heavily
favoring minorities. Applicants are given 20 points toward a
possible 150 if they are a member of a minority as opposed to 12
points for a perfect SAT score or one point for an outstanding
essay.
In making his case against Michigan and affirmative action, Bush
cites policies like the one in California, that guarantees the top
4 percent of each high school class admission to the University of
California, as a means to achieve diversity. He also mentioned
similar policies in Texas and Florida, but admitted these programs
have fallen short of the inclusiveness affirmative action
established.
But what Bush also fails to mention is most of the
“race-neutral” programs pursued by California are aimed
at restoring the same levels of diversity it had before repealing
affirmative action. The UC essentially practices de facto
affirmative action through the adoption of programs recognizing the
need for affirmative action-like policies but calling them
something more politically palatable. Hence the creation of
“comprehensive review” and the attempted elimination of
the SAT I from admissions. But nothing has come close to achieving
the levels of diversity as did affirmative action.
Changing affirmative action to include non-minority students
from low socioeconomic backgrounds ignores both the purpose of
affirmative action and the fact that race itself is a considerable
obstacle in admissions regardless of income.
For example, whites from families with incomes below $10,000 had
a mean SAT test score that was 46 points higher than blacks whose
families had incomes of between $80,000 and $100,000. Blacks from
families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score
that was 142 points below the mean score for whites from families
at the same income level.
Michigan has such an extreme policy on race because, according
to CBS, law school admissions for minorities at the university
would have dropped from 15 percent to 0.4 percent without its
diversity considerations in place. The Supreme Court should not be
grappling with the fate and constitutionality of affirmative action
given Michigan’s policy is an exception to the rule.
The greatest irony of this court case lies in the use of the
Fourteenth Amendment to argue against affirmative action on the
grounds of the equal protection clause. This amendment was included
in the constitution specifically to help minorities overcome
inequality. When it didn’t work, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
was passed, and affirmative action was established as one tool to
execute the reforms it called for. Now, less than 40 years later,
Bush is trying to eliminate that too and encourage more regression
on the progress made in race issues.
People who believe it’s not the government’s role to
correct institutional wrongs forget that the government itself is
responsible for such egregious wrongs as segregation not that long
ago.