At the University of Michigan, according to their affirmative action policy which uses a "plus-factor" system, in which points are added to application scores in order to give certain applicants advantages, minority applicants receive an overly generous 20-point addition to their application scores based solely on their minority status. Such an extreme addition violates the basic principles of affirmative action, which include leveling the field and providing for diversity -- and instead creates an unfair advantage. Last week the Center for Individual Rights, representing Jennifer Gratz in her case against Michigan (Gratz v. Bollinger), in which Gratz is suing because she was rejected in 1998 under what were unfair practices, requested that the Supreme Court review the case.
Although plus-factor systems serve a key purpose in providing for racial equality, Michigan's 20-point bonus is excessive. The Supreme Court should take this case and rule against such extreme plus-factor systems while leaving the door open for more innovative and more equitable affirmative action systems that look more at environment and economic issues than minority status.
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Court ruled against the individual quota system that reserved a fixed number of seats in a class for minority applicants. The majority said they would uphold affirmative action programs in which an applicant with minority status was given a "plus-factor."
According to the Michigan admissions point sheet, a minority applicant is "an underrepresented racial/ethnic" group member and 20 points is automatically added to such an individual's scores, one-fifth of the 100 point maximum score that applicants can receive. As a comparison, 20 points -- the highest number of points that can be received for any one category -- is also added to athletes' scores. In contrast, applicants receive only one point for an "excellent" essay.
One of affirmative action's primary goals is to create an equal playing field for people of all races, gender and backgrounds. Before Bakke, many Americans believed the best way to do this was to set quotas for the number of minority students necessary to create such equality. But since the decision outlawed quota systems from public universities, opinion has changed and now most would view such practices as unfair.
Equally unfair is inflating minorities' application scores by leaps and bounds to help them get into schools and balance racial numbers, as is done at Michigan. Public opinion shows that a large majority of Americans of every race shares this view. According to a poll published by the Center for Individual Rights and conducted by The Washington Post, 94 percent of whites and 86 percent of blacks answered "no" when asked if "race or ethnicity should be a factor when deciding who is hired, promoted or admitted to college."
Skewing application scores by large numbers is similar to setting quotas: It goes against the original goal of trying to create a level playing field for everyone by often making the field inequitable for non-minorities. The University of Michigan's policy is guilty of being extreme. Often non-minorities who are more qualified than their minority counterparts will be turned away because the percentage of points added to minority scores is so great.
This is not to say that the existing policies for admissions to colleges create a level playing field. For a number of reasons, many minorities face greater obstacles in obtaining a high level of education than some of their counterparts. Whether they receive poor primary and high school education because of bad public schools or are directly discriminated against because of their race, it is often harder for minorities to obtain a college diploma.
But poverty and discrimination are not solely minority problems. Many people of all races are in the same or similar position, and to give minority applicants such large advantages is unfair to non-minority counterparts who may have had an equally hard or harder time.
College admission offices should actively seek ways to help applicants who are disadvantaged. Perhaps they can implement a system that takes into consideration the environment in which the applicant was raised and educated. Even limiting the number of points added to scores would be more just. However, adding what ends up being 20 percent of the total number of points possible to applicants' scores simply because they are members of minority populations goes against the goal of affirmative action by tilting the delicate seesaw of "fairness" in the opposite direction.
Diversity on college campuses is also an issue, and an important goal of affirmative action, which is why the "plus factor" cannot and should not be fully eliminated.However, diversity at the cost of fair admissions policies is not justifiable. The Supreme Court should see this and rule against extreme plus-factors, such as the one at the University of Michigan, requiring the percentage of points that can be awarded for holding minority status be lowered significantly to levels closer to levels for high SAT scores or excellent essays. At the same time, they must acknowledge that it is in the best interest of states and the country as a whole to seek new ways to ensure fairness and diversity in the college application process.
(Kate Durbin is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
