While it seems the highest court in the land has not taken a firm stance on affirmative action, it's encouraging to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold a policy that gives minority students an equal chance at higher education.
We also support the court's denouncement of a blanket point system that blindly gives preference to minorities without taking into account the entire picture of an individual.
After nearly three months of deliberation, the Supreme Court has ruled on the affirmative action policies of the University of Michigan, ruling in two separate cases. Justices voted 5-4 in Grutter v. Bollinger, ruling the policy used by U-M's law school is constitutional. They ruled 6-3 in Gratz v. Bollinger indicating the point system used in U-M undergraduate admission is unconstitutional.
In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled university affirmative action policies using racial quotas were unconstitutional in University of California Board of Regents v. Bakke. The court allowed higher education institutions to continue to use race as a factor in admissions.
It's 25 years later, and the fact of the matter is still simple. Minorities have been discriminated against for hundreds of years, while white citizens have enjoyed privileges reserved solely for themselves.
Times have drastically changed since the Emancipation Proclamation, the civil rights movement, even the Bakke case. But minorities, as a whole, remain underprivileged. They need an instrument to give them a boost in an academic and professional scene dominated by whites.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion in the Grutter case. "This court has long recognized that 'education is the very foundation of good citizenship,'" she said, quoting Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ended segregation in public schools.
"For this reason, the diffusion of knowledge and opportunity though public institutions of higher education must be accessible to all individuals regardless of race or ethnicity," said O'Connor, who was the deciding vote in the Grutter Case. She sided with the majority in the Gratz case.
It's important to note this decision happened at the university level, because society is affected in some way by the concept affirmative action represents - minorities getting more equal treatment. Businesses and government also use similar policies.
It's unfortunate affirmative action needs to exist in the first place. Everyone would like to see a perfect society, one where people of all races, ethnicities, social standings and backgrounds are treated with equality and respect. In such a society, there would be no need to give preferential treatment to a certain group of people because of historic and modern disadvantages.
Unfortunately, the utopia described above doesn't exist. Social, ethnic and racial minorities will probably have to wait many years until they can fully enjoy the privileges afforded to whites since this country was founded.
Furthermore, the educational system that dominates the nation is made up of several inequalities. Students in predominately wealthy suburbs attend high schools that benefit from higher levels property taxes and federal programs which award money based on high test scores. Inner-city schools don't always receive the same funding and thus can't educate and prepare students as well.
While both whites and minorities attend both types of schools, the latter type leave all students attending at a disadvantage.
If the federal government would take the time to properly fund K-12 education - and truly "leave no child behind" - all secondary students seeking to continue their education would have an equal chance to gain admission into a university.
The application of affirmative action by colleges and universities is similar to cutting a weed at ground level. The visible problem, ethnic and racial discrimination in higher education, might go away for a while. But because the root of the problem, inequality at the primary and secondary levels, is still there -the weed can always come back.
Another way affirmative action can benefit society, which applies to universities across the nation, is the process it provides to create a diverse college campus. While the educational knowledge gained in classrooms is important, the wisdom gained in a multicultural environment is just as important. College doesn't just prepare us to be members of a professional working atmosphere; it prepares us to be world citizens.
Perhaps that's what many opponents of affirmative action don't understand. In college, we all learn from one another.
Grutter and Gratz feel they were discriminated against because they were passed over in their respective field of applicants. They say preference was given to minorities who were, as they claimed, just as - or less - qualified than they were. Grutter, especially, must understand without the "critical mass" of minority law students sought by U-M, they could not heavily promote diversity. Besides, it's not as if U-M is admitting to their law program men and women who barely eked through their undergraduate studies. Certainly those minorities admitted to the law school were qualified to attend. They were simply given the same right to attend as is given to any white student.
That's a big issue here. Many of affirmative action's opponents are white conservatives who feel their group is being unfairly treated: an example of reverse discrimination. While in its most technical terms - giving special treatment to someone based on their skin color - is discriminatory, affirmative action and its proponents only seek to level the playing field that's been inherently slanted toward whites for too long.
Every American, regardless of race, deserves a chance at higher education, and higher education deserves a chance to be diverse. The Supreme Court was right in its decision to uphold the use of race in university admissions and eradicate U-M's point system. Affirmative action is a necessary tool in helping minorities overcome disadvantages until everyone is equal in the educational system.
