Some would cast the policies of affirmative action as intended to correct past injustices, specifically against African Americans, which still hamper their ability to compete for jobs, college admission and career advancement. But this is only a part of the picture. Affirmative action as it exists in America has many benefits for society as a whole, and not just for African Americans and women. The main mode by which affirmative action benefits our society is by increasing the racial and gender diversity of our institutions of higher learning, our government, the military and even private business.
Thus, despite the fact that no former slaves are alive today to benefit from affirmative action and few applicants to universities or the military grew up under Jim Crow, affirmative action in some form must be allowed to increase the opportunities for this nation's underrepresented minorities. This is solely because it is (at least so far) the best available method of increasing diversity.
The cases heard before the Supreme Court last week address two questions raised by the above statement. The first question is whether the policies of affirmative action, as practiced at the University of Michigan and across the nation, which assign minority status a "plus factor" in consideration of admission, are the best way to achieve diversity in our institutions.
Several plans across the nation have been debated and some instituted (examples include Texas' 10 percent plan and other plans that take into account socioeconomic status as opposed to race), but two main objections are raised to either of these plans: First, they rely on de facto segregation in schools or are simply a backhanded way of targeting racial minorities without specifically referring to their race. These programs, however, do not dodge the issue of whether race should be used, because the execution of both the 10 percent plan and socioeconomic plans still give minorities a distinct advantage over whites.
The second criticism of "race-neutral" diversity schemes is that they end up lowering the standards of academic excellence of the institutions that implement them. This is because they let in unqualified applicants solely based on socioeconomic bracket or placement in school district. Proponents of affirmative action insist that all applicants accepted to competitive schools such as the University of Michigan law school be qualified academically and otherwise, in addition to meeting the guidelines for diversity. Thus, as the lawyer for the University of Michigan argued, the policy of assigning a "plus factor" to minority applicants ensures that the school can be both academically excellent and racially diverse.
The second question raised by the cases before the Supreme Court is whether ensuring that all levels in society's hierarchy are as racially diverse as the overall makeup of the population is indeed fundamental to the functioning of our civic society. This issue is central to the disagreement between liberal advocates of affirmative action and conservatives, as represented by the Bush Administration. The arguments of Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general and the attorney representing the Bush administration's stance on both Supreme Court cases, indicate that the view of the administration is that diversity is not a compelling need for society (and especially the military) -- at least not compelling enough to justify treating underrepresented minorities preferentially.
This position is countered by an amicus curae brief filed by several military personalities, including the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The brief draws attention to the discipline problems that arose during the Vietnam War because of the disproportional representation of whites in the officer corps as opposed to the enlisted ranks, which had a large minority element. The University of Michigan has taken a different approach, emphasizing that maintaining a racially diverse atmosphere in its graduate and undergraduate classes is beneficial to the educational experience it offers its students.
Diversity, then, in the view of the many universities and military academies which have filed amicus briefs supporting affirmative action, is a compelling interest for these institutions because it is essential to their function.
In the case of higher education, diversity is indeed essential for several reasons. First, a diverse class of more than a token number of any minority group is essential to breaking down stereotypes within a class. Breaking down these stereotypes is essential to our society, because graduates of higher education will be in positions wherein they will be forced to interact and assess those in society who are not like them.
Second, having a racially diverse class is recognized as being educationally beneficial to all students in a class, not the least of which are the white students who learn as much from minority students as these minorities learn about whites. These two effects are in the interest of society because they encourage a smoother functioning of the elements of society, and because they are essential to reducing the dangerous racial tensions that still exist.
The third effect of diversifying the student class at universities is similar to the effect of doing so in the military. The increase of minorities graduating with degrees in law or high rank in the military will encourage better cooperation and integration in our society and in the military, which can only have beneficial effects upon society as a whole.
At this juncture in our history, as America prepares to commit military and civilian forces to secure and oversee a people that is culturally dissimilar to our own, and as racial tensions flare even on our own hallowed campus, Americans must decide if diversity in our institutions is truly worth fighting for.
(Ilan Gutherz's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at igutherz@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
