The talking heads of the right wing claim they want to run the government like a business, yet they oppose an affirmative action program specifically supported in briefs by Fortune 500 companies.
They claim to support national security, yet they oppose affirmative action policies which high-ranking military officers assert are essential to national security.
In short, when dealing with affirmative action, the right wing is consistently inconsistent.
On Monday, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School, while simultaneously overturning the U-M's undergraduate policy in a 6-3 decision. In both decisions, the Court upheld the principles of the 1978 Bakke precedent, permitting a "narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Racism, both explicitly and institutionally, is unfortunately still a reality in today's society. For example, in January, a study released by the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found resumes from job applicants with "white sounding names" received 50 percent more responses than resumes with "African-American sounding names."
Institutionally, the discrimination of the past can perpetuate through today's generations by disproportionately denying some minorities the same educational and financial opportunities as nonminorities.
Affirmative action was never intended to support quotas or automatic entry for a select group of applicants. Instead, it was instituted in 1969 by a pragmatic Republican president to address the problem of racism as a barrier to minority employment. Back in those days, a few Republicans actually recognized that ignoring a problem would not automatically eliminate it.
Some members of the right argue the solution lies not with affirmative action but with solving the problem at its roots, by strengthening public education for all students, regardless of race. This is a good solution. Unfortunately, though, these same conservative ideologues merely pay lip-service to strong public education. For instance, immediately after signing the "No Child Left Behind Act," President Bush slashed funding to the schools and children he had alleged to support; now states are struggling to pick up the tab.
Thus, many universities, businesses and military institutions attempt to address this reality with affirmative action programs. Businesses recognize in an increasingly diverse marketplace, they want a diverse workforce to provide them with a variety of unique perspectives. Military institutions desire a diverse corps of officers to enhance battlefield efficiency. For similar reasons, undergraduate and graduate universities identify that diversity better prepares their students for the workforce and for a prominent role in society. All these establishments acknowledge a compelling interest in maintaining diversity.
Moreover, to help ensure diversity, properly administered affirmative action programs draw on race as only one of many qualities in an applicant. As Justice Lewis Powell recognized in the Bakke case, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor supported in the current case, "the diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element."
Race cannot be the decisive factor in an applicant, but in a narrowly tailored affirmative action program, universities and other public institutions can and should consider race as a "plus" for some minority applicants.
Obviously, as the Supreme Court acknowledged, race-based affirmative action will not exist forever. As more minorities are given more opportunities, the need for affirmative action diminishes. In addition, as racial disparities and discrimination decreases, affirmative action programs should more heavily consider economic and financial disadvantages over any race-based considerations, deflecting misguided criticism that affirmative action merely helps a few rich minorities at the expense of poor nonminorities.
We should all eagerly and optimistically anticipate the day when race-neutral alternatives are sufficient to achieve the compelling interest of maintaining diversity. Until then, though, we cannot afford to ignore reality.
Even if it means forcing consistency upon the right wing.
Andrew Goetz is the president of the MSU College Democrats. Reach him at goetzand@msu.edu.
