The U.S. Supreme Court is deliberating a case involving the University of Michigan’s law school that will probably decide the fate of affirmative action.
Since the decision will probably be wide-ranging, I’m going to focus on the larger issue of affirmative action.
Affirmative action’s original purpose was to curb institutional racism in the government (private universities and businesses have much greater leeway to discriminate based upon any criteria they choose).
However, the current reason for affirmative action is different from the original reason. For one, the battleground has shifted from the government workplace and government contractors to prestigious public universities.
I emphasize the word “presitigious” because admission to most public universities today requires something only slightly more difficult to achieve than a pulse.
Affirmative action’s modern objectives are to promote leadership in minority communities, add to the pool of qualified minority workers and rectify historical discrimination.
All of these are admirable goals, but I question whether affirmative action is the best way to achieve them.
For one, would going to Michigan Law as opposed to the University of Memphis law school make a big difference as far as determining whether a certain person will be a leader? The people I know who are genuine leaders would rise to the top, no matter what school was on their resumZ. Also, if these minorities are truly gifted, they would get accepted to any school they chose, regardless of race.
And if the minority was not accepted to the elite school, does anyone seriously believe that the acceptance decision had something to do with institutional racism at the school? I might have believed that 30 years ago, but considering the pains universities take today to be politically correct, I think the idea of institutional racism at elite public universities is ludicrous.
Adding to the pool of minority workers is another admirable goal. But again, I think discriminatory admissions procedures at public universities is not the best way to achieve it. My argument is similar to the one I just made: the pool of good workers has little to do with the amount of degrees granted by a particuluar elite public university.
Ask a few recent college graduates: did their degree make them “qualified” for the job they now have? As one of my high school teachers told me, “You get a degree and then you get a job. You actually begin learning something when you get the job.”
Most degrees signify that a person has the ability to learn something. I say that a person will have that same ability to learn whether he or she attended Mississippi State or the University of Virginia.
The last question is the most difficult for me to answer: should affirmative action be used to rectify historical discrimination?
I don’t think it’s possible to correct history. The best we can do is learn from our past and try to make the best future we can.
Racism is a two-way street. It’s wrong to racially discriminate even in an attempt to achieve desirable ends, such as increasing diversity. But isn’t it illogical to racially discriminate in order to achieve diversity?
Real diversity cannot be achieved by a twisted process that pits people against each other based upon nothing more than skin color-something none of us were able to choose.
If racial discrimination is wrong, then it’s wrong in all cases.
Wilson Boyd is a senior economics major.