Most of us cannot count the number of times that we have heard Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. A fair number of people would agree that it is one of the single most recognized documents of the Civil Rights Movement. However, those who support the University of Michigan's racist acceptance policy should listen to that speech one more time. King proclaimed that he had a dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the contents of their character.
A case is currently under review by the Supreme Court, in which two white students are claiming that they were unfairly denied acceptance to the University of Michigan because of their race. Michigan operates on a points system in which each applicant is given a number of points based on certain criteria. One of the criteria for receiving points is the applicant's race. Allow me to re-iterate: Minorities are being given points because of the color of their skin. What perversion of the same civil rights that King fought for can be used to justify such an act? In fact, awarding points based on race is directly contrary to the beliefs of King.
Have we not progressed beyond a society in which judging someone by their race is an acceptable behavior? According to the Civil Rights Act, it is not onlyimmoral but also illegal to judge a person by his race alone. Having a racially and ethnically diverse campus is an admirable goal, but the method cannot be justified if it reinforces racial boundaries. When a student is examined for admission to a university, his race should not be a factor.
A white person is no more valuable to a school than a black person, and a black person is no more valuable than a white person. In fact, to be forced to look at things in such terms is ridiculous. Would not King be the first to agree that the color of someone's skin does not dictate what that person has to offer to society?
It cannot be denied that America has had racial problems in the past and still has some racial problems today. There is still racism in the world; but it is clear that a society without racial bounds should be our ultimate goal. We cannot, in good conscious, justify the creation of further racial barriers by such unnecessary, racist policies.
The problem of artificially creating diversity is not limited to Michigan alone. At our University as well, artificially created "diversity" is applauded. Officials at the University familiar with our admissions process have described it as similar to Michigan's policy, in that it takes applicants' race into account. Instead of lessening the gap between racial groups, such questionable policies tend to widen them. What must be understood in this day and age is that any time you classify a racial group as in need of special accommodations or special treatment because of the color of their skin, you are acting as a racist. Such rules apply regardless of the race being singled out -- majority or minority. The mere act of separating the races and stating "you need special treatment because of the color of your skin," only serves to separate the races further.
Catch phrases such as "promoting racial diversity" and "creating a multicultural learning environment" are used to rationalize many of the policies and ideas behind them that cause much of the racial tension in our world today. However, being diverse is more than just having the dots on a graph line up correctly. It should be more than counting colors and saying "we are diverse." When such policies are created, the entire point of diversity is lost: that we are equal. We must not allow ourselves to create such an Orwellian world where some are more equal than others, and our "diversity" is only measured in the number of minority students accepted during a given year.
Not every minority in the country is disadvantaged by his race. Not every white person is in a better place because of his race. However, when we accept the sham of "multicultural diversity," that is exactly what we are saying.We cannot state so blatantly that one racial group is deserving of special treatment -- majority or minority. We cannot look high school graduates in the eye and tell them that they have been rejected because someone else would look better on a graph of racial diversity.
We cannot allow ourselves to reduce the race and gender of a person to a simple check mark on a point sheet, or a dot on a statistical graph. To do so is insulting to the very notion of racial equality. It belittles the person behind that check mark. Truly that is what is important: the person, not the race.
(Daniel Bagley 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 | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
