|
A Case
for Affirmative Action
January 29, 2003
By Eric Munoz
Recently the University of Michigan has come under scrutiny
as it prepares to defend its admissions policy in front of
the Supreme Court. The op-ed pages of papers nationwide have
been filled with positions supporting and attacking the university's
admissions policy. Even the White House has weighed in by
filing an amicus - a "Friend of the Court" - brief criticizing
Michigan's program while several prominent universities and
corporations, including Stanford University, Microsoft and
General Motors, have filed briefs in support of Michigan's
program.
It is important to consider the university's race based policy
in the context of its overall admissions process. Every year
the University of Michigan, one of the best schools in the
country, receives far many more qualified applicants than
it can accommodate. The university has developed a "selection
index" to help sort out the applicants. The index is designed
to help admissions counselors form a quality, diverse student
body. According to the University of Michigan, there are up
to 150 points available in their selection index, 110 of which
are based on purely academic achievements. The other 40 points
can be awarded based on any of a number of factors. Up to
20 points can be awarded to an applicant based on race, socio-economic
background or athletic ability, up to 16 points may be awarded
to an applicant from Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and up to
four points can be awarded for alumni relationships.
Opponents have claimed that the 20 points that may be awarded
based on race is unconstitutional and unfair (interestingly,
opponents to the Michigan system neglect to mention the other
non-academic points awarded for legacy connections, athletic
prowess or geographic characteristics). However, in 1978 the
Supreme Court ruled in Regents of the University of California
v. Bakke that using race as a factor for admissions was
in fact legal, and that "the State has a substantial interest
that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions
program involving the competitive consideration of race and
ethnic origin." The controlling opinion in that case as issued
by the United States Supreme Court is the ruling law of the
land, meaning that the use of race as a factor in admissions
is constitutional.
Furthermore, the petitioners in the current suit have conceded
that the University of Michigan does not admit minority students
that are not qualified over non-minority students that are
qualified. The University has also accepted white students
with lower scores and GPA's than minority students that were
rejected.
While it is clear that the constitutionality of race as a
factor among several factors can be used in admissions, the
fight over the University of Michigan's admission policy is
a really just a proxy for the fight over the larger questions
of whether or not race still matters in today's America and
whether or not affirmative action is necessary and fair.
If our society were indeed race-neutral, we would expect
that the social characteristics across race would be about
even. In other words, in a truly color blind society, we would
expect that Black and Hispanic Americans would be about as
likely as White Americans to be poor, unemployed or to be
a high school graduate.
However, a look at several demographic statistics shows that
indeed race is still relevant, much to the misfortune of minorities.
According to statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, the poverty
rates-the 3-year average from 1999-2001-among blacks (22.9%),
Hispanics (21.9%) and Native Americans (24.5%) is three times
the rate among non-Hispanic whites (7.6%). The US Department
of Education statistics show that high school drop out rates
in 2000 for Blacks (13.1%) and Hispanics (27.8%) were much
higher than for white students (6.9%). And statistics issued
by the Bureau of Labor for November 2002, show that Blacks
(11.5%) and Hispanics (7.9%) are much more likely than Whites
(5.1%) to be unemployed.
Clearly race matters when it comes to poverty, educational
attainment and unemployment. As for fairness, it hardly seems
fair that a baby born to black or Hispanic parents is three
times more likely to be born into poverty than a baby born
to white parents.
Affirmative action sought to level the playing field and
eliminate the wide discrepancy in poverty, educational attainment
and employment levels between the races. While much progress
has been made, it is clear that much more remains to be done.
While no one would condone a system that awards positions
or admissions solely on race, a system that uses race as a
factor among many factors in accepting, hiring or promoting
qualified applicants is a necessary tool in reaching racial
equality. Until race is no longer relevant in a child's chances
to be born into poverty and until educational resources and
attainment is roughly equal across races, affirmative action
programs like the one used at the University of Michigan are
still needed.
|
