How do you feel when the minority student gains admission to the university you applied for, and you were rejected due to your color, not your academic record? In this \land of the free"" attitude that labels our cultural beliefs, some events and decisions lead us to contradict this apparent outlook.
In a recent case, Grutter vs. Bollinger, the Supreme Court witnessed an opposition to the previously standing law that permitted universities to eliminate contesting applicants based on race. Directed initially to the University of Michigan, the judicial system is currently in a frenzy to decide whether race should be a factor in recognizing appropriate admission standards in all universities, including UW-Madison. As the court is in the midst of setting new precedents for affirmative action across the nation, I hope they will wrestle with reason and eliminate the use of race as a basis for academic enrollment.
Affirmative action is a touchy subject; its righteousness has been debated throughout history. I'm no politician, and I detest involving myself in political issues or affiliating myself with certain patricians, but when a national issue or controversial topic affects me and my peers, then it becomes personal.
A UW statute states this, ""No student may be denied admission to...the system or its institutions because of the student's race, color...[or] ancestry,"" and technically no student is denied based on these areas. However, such factors are weighted to an extent that may leave your best friend without an education. One UW Board of Regents member, Fred Mohs, implies a support for a race-based admission by citing the conclusion of the case, University of California v. Bakke ruled in 1978, allowing schools to utilize race as a means for acceptance. Even though this argument is based on a decision from long ago and currently the court is in alarm to the situation, I guess the next logical question would be if race is allowed, why not other controversial topics? The line needs to be drawn by the judicial system; otherwise tomorrow we'll find gender, ethnicity, religion and other less meaningful elements employed.
Evolution is a term relating the survivors to the fittest. It explains well the fact that we are all victims to genetic variability and natural course. Biologically, our internal components are similar, thus the man from Africa is no different than the woman from Spain. This brings us to the idea of increased diversity that is desired by so many authoritative officials. Many people want a diverse and heterozygous culture as the future approaches, and some people, including the director of admissions here, feel that ""If the goal is to lead society into the future, a future that will be a diverse and equal society, then using race in admissions is the quickest and clearly best way to do that."" I disagree.
The issue of diversity should not be something that is guided by the hand of man. College admission need not become a picnic basket where authorities can pick and choose their favorite item. The person with the best academic record or the finest educational background is the one who is to be considered for enrollment, regardless of race. Otherwise, it'll be like a marathon for which you have trained for years, and never get a chance to compete in, only because you wore a black shirt to the starting line instead of the more appealing red. Regulating the medley of our future society is like tampering with evolution. Instead, let those who are fit for the task or the challenge of academics be the ones who naturally appear in the highlights of the upcoming community.
Another association to be made regarding race-based admissions relates to pity. In that I mean if a university accepts an individual solely as an attempt to create a diverse atmosphere, or abide by governmental regulations, I am not sure the individual should feel any sense of accomplishment or qualification for their actions. When people make decisions to fulfill requirements or to portray a beautiful image, the legitimacy of the decision is questioned and demeaned. America is a place of equal opportunity, so let our choices and eliminations be ""equal,"" not biased. Many will say that race is a very small factor in the decision process, but it should not be one at all.
If it's diversity they desire, then an alternative would be a continuation and progression of the current programs developed for people of color; programs that are applied to elementary and high school students as a means to enrich and allow an equal academic potential for all types of people. Once these students are put through equivalent primary educational facilities, then they are ready to compete with the prime, the fittest.
When it comes to choosing a right candidate for a university, we should all be in the same boat. My fear is that, even if America's decision makers will soon contest the legality of race-based admission, this factor will not be suppressed. As Mohs was quoted, ""When it comes to the issue of race [in admissions], the fundamental element is secrecy. That's why nothing is in writing [about] how it works. Even the regents don't know.""
By the way, if you think I have a natural bias with regards to this issue, think again, I am a ""minority.""
