As the summer session closes, universities the United States over are asking one sticky question: How do we determine who should be our students?
This question resides in the shadow of dual Supreme Court rulings on the University of Michigan's admissions policies.
The first, Gratz v. Bollinger, shot down the undergraduate policy which gave 20 extra points based on race. The second, Grutter v. Bollinger, upheld the law school's policy where the race factor was included but more nebulous.
When a friend asked my opinion of the rulings, I said they were chicken rulings. The justices decided to split the baby, shooting down blatant affirmative action while upholding a subtler form. Lawyer Marie Gryphon dubbed it a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.
Instead of making a definitive statement the Court gave a relative one. Gryphon noted that the Court decreed admissions policies should be inscrutably vague about the factor race plays so they are constitutional. Other legal scholars concur with this view.
Dr. Carl Cohen, a Michigan professor, gave a speech prior to the rulings where he listed four results of racial preference policies. The first is the people most hurt by preferential policies are those who benefited. Being selected on skin color gives the recipient no achievement impetus since merit was not the determining factor.
The second was that qualified applicants are disenfranchised because of their skin. The burden is borne mentally as the rejected person is left to wonder why they were penalized for their success.
Cohen's third point was that heavy prices are paid by entities that give preference. The price is a decline of academic standards, student achievement and faculty production. Those items cause a university public devaluation which could take a generation to repair.
The final, and most damaging, point is that preferential policies produce an undercurrent of resentment in society. Cohen's final point is the skeleton in the closet. Any preferential policy will produce anger from the disenfranchised towards the recipient.
This can produce covert racism, a type more deadly than blatant racism since it runs under the radar. When it surfaces it could be too late to stem it.
The best admissions policy for any university is not a nebulous one as prescribed by the Court. It is an honest, exact statement of what it takes to be accepted.
Any hint of racial preference involved devastates the process and casts doubt upon the university. It also produces a highly skeptical student body that wonders what really got certain people in.
Merit is the best policy for admissions. It should be noted that merit, like preference, is discriminatory. But it is solidly justifiable since the burden is on the individual's achievement. Preference dismisses achievement for diversity, a position not easily justified in an academic or professional setting.
The final evidence of a chicken decision was the Court's expectation that racial preference policies would be gone within twenty-five years. In short, they left it to the universities to deal with.
That is a wish universities can make happen by eliminating race as an admitting factor.
Write to Jeff at mannedarena@yahoo.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
