America needs affirmative action. It is the inherent duty of our governmental institutions to level the playing field of life and root for the underdog so he or she can come to realize the American dream - the rags-to-riches story that helps constitute our national ideology.

There are some Americans who seem afraid of what a level playing field could mean for their own quality of life; perhaps filling in the gaps between the have and have-nots might mean they will have less. These are the people who scream words such as "quota" every time they hear "affirmative action," hoping to rally uninformed followers around a supposedly un-American concept.

Those are people such as state Rep. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Twp., who is trying to get the Michigan Legislature to come out against the University of Michigan's admissions policy set to be debated in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

But affirmative action is not about quotas and neither is U-M's policy. It's about ensuring diversity in education - a richer environment. Likewise, affirmative action is not only about race, as many conceive it to be. And U-M's policy is not based solely on the racial identity of the school's applicants.

It's a part of a list of evaluated qualities of applicants. It's narrowly tailored in an effort to identify and resolve a lack of diversity in its law school. The university's policy follows standards set in 1978 by the Supreme Court in its decision in the University of California v. Bakke case. And the high court should continue its precedent by reaffirming a ruling in favor of the university.

The Supreme Court declared it's in the best governmental interest to provide for diversity on the nation's college campuses.

U-M awards as many points to racial and ethnic minority students as it does for socioeconomically disadvantaged students and scholarship athletes. Lower point totals are awarded for high grade-point averages, ACT and SAT scores and for advanced-placement classes.

Applicants also can earn points based on residence - students from northern counties earn more because most in-state students at U-M are from southern counties. Applicants from various high schools also are able to come by extra points if their schools don't boast a high percentage of students who go on to college.

In all, U-M applicants can earn up to 150 points toward undergraduate admission to most of its schools and colleges. Students who earn 100 points are eligible for admission - though that is not guaranteed.

Yes, in an ideal world, all qualified applicants would be allowed admittance to the university of their choice. But there are no guarantees in life.

The bottom line is that Americans born into wealthy and upper-middle class homes have a better chance to get a higher education. That is not the reality for families who have not been smiled upon by history.

Is U-M's policy the perfect solution to the problem? Probably not, but affirmative action is an effort universities, businesses and government need to take.

And there's no perfect solution. We don't live in a perfect world.

But that doesn't negate the necessity of America's affirmative action programs that work to help the country's marginalized citizens achieve their dreams.

U-M's policy might not be that end-all solution, but it is a stepping stone.

Yes, in an ideal world, equal opportunity would be a given - no strings attached.

In an ideal world, affirmative action wouldn't be necessary.

But this is reality.