While browsing through the University's online calendar of events, I came across a lecture with a rather peculiar title: "The Liberal Case against Affirmative Action." Mainstream liberal thought definitely does not coincide with this notion. Intrigued by the theme, I attended the lecture at the Law School. The speaker, University of Michigan Professor Carl Cohen, who authored "Naked Racial Preference: The Case Against Affirmative Action," was involved in uncovering the use of affirmative action in the admissions process at the University of Michigan and subsequently the Gratz v. Bollinger lawsuit brought forth against the University of Michigan.
When asked what most of us were wondering -- why the unusual title-- he explained matter-of-factly that the idea of equality is a liberal idea. Also, he has been a liberal all of his life, writing for The Nation and involving himself in Democratic politics. Obviously, whatever political ideology people align with, mostly everyone agrees that equality is an idea that we all should embrace. After his lecture, I was left to ponder why his fellow liberals were in favor of the absurd practice of affirmative action in its current form -- racial preferences.
Professor Cohen's fiery speech, often peppered with adamant declarations, blatantly harsh statements and some humor, was buttressed by indisputable facts, logical reasoning and compelling analysis. He outlined his premise for opposing racial preferences: They are simply wrong and bad. Wrong, because it is immoral to "treat someone better or worse because of their skin color" -- it is a violation of the law (the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin) and a violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Additionally, he believes that racial preferences are bad for minorities, universities and society as a whole in that they further racial stereotypes, may cause minorities to doubt their own merits and increase the atmosphere of racial tension.
Initiatives such as affirmative action were created to eliminate prejudice. Professor Cohen stated that affirmative action, in its original language, was an "honorable set of principles." He posited that Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson never foresaw, or much less would approve of, the current policy of racial preferences now present in many institutions, as it is in direct contradiction to the ideal of equality and non-discrimination.
Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, or prejudice against groups that are considered to be in the majority. Discrimination against minorities is certainly an injustice that needs to be rectified, and to a great extent, has been redressed in the last half century. Because of these necessary efforts, however, an over-zealousness has caused a shift in discrimination from those commonly discriminated against to those who were once seen as the discriminators.
In a colorblind society, people would be chosen for a job or admitted into a learning institution based on merit, not race, gender or religion. In creating a system of racial preferences, college admissions boards show favor to certain minority groups. Because of this, they aren't admitting students based on qualifications, but on nationality, gender and creed -- the same exact characteristics that minorities claim, and in some cases, rightfully so, are the basis for the prejudice they face. This is hypocritical. It circumvents the whole purpose, which is to have a fair system without injustice or bias.
In the old system, ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the University of Michigan had an admissions policy based on a point system. A student could receive a maximum of 150 points. Achieving 100 points usually constituted admittance. African-American students were given 20 points, solely on the basis of their race. Other points were given to students for other factors, such as high SAT scores, which gained students 12 points. This means that African-American students were granted one-fifth of the points that would generally guarantee them admission for something that they didn't even achieve. While such a direct system was outlawed, the admissions board can still find a way, unfortunately, to take race into account in the admissions process through "unwritten" consideration given to minorities.
The Michigan Law School screened applications to make sure that 10-17 percent of its accepted students are of a particular minority group. This is a system that sets up a preconceived idea, even before considering the merits of its applicants, of who it will and will not admit. According to John McWhorter, author of "Authentically Black, Essays for the Black Silent Majority," a law school applicant is 234 more times likely to get accepted if he is black than if he is white. Somehow the Supreme Court still upheld such a system.
Giving preferential treatment to minorities on the basis of their race, an innate characteristic, is insinuating that they aren't intelligent or well-qualified enough to earn a position based on merit. Placing so much weight on race in the college admissions process is insulting to minorities.
(Whitney Blake's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at wblake@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 days agoThe 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 | 3 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.
