A Few Words
From Ernesto Santos-DeJesus, Director, Office of Diversity Initiatives

Ernesto Santos-DeJesus

Affirmative action programs are under fire from many sectors of society. The latest is the controversy surrounding the admissions policy of the University of Michigan’s School of Law. That policy has been characterized as a “race-based quota system” that gives preference to African Americans and Hispanics who apply for admission. In 2001 the policy was challenged in the lower courts as being unconstitutional. The policy was upheld, but the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. This year the court will hear arguments that may decide the fate of affirmative action programs.

The sides are gearing up for a protracted battle. One side will argue that the policy amounts to reverse discrimination, establishing quotas for admitting African Americans and Hispanics at the expense of better-qualified Caucasian or other minority applicants. They will argue that this quota system does not enhance the diversity of the student body, and that the policy does not consider those students with a higher potential for success both in their studies and in society after they graduate.

The other side will argue that without using race as consideration there is little opportunity for minorities to prove that they can compete in higher education and succeed once they have graduated. They will argue that the policy is not about quotas, but rather that it looks at the entirety of the individual and how he or she will fit within a diverse student body. They contend that a diverse student body contributes to the learning environment.

The reality is that both sides are right. A race-based quota system is, in effect, reverse discrimination, and there is little empirical data to prove that a student’s academic experience is significantly enhanced by attending an institution whose student body is diverse. Equally sound in concept is the argument that unless one is given the opportunity to compete, one will never know how successful one can be. Both sides will spend a lot of energy and money to argue their case.

Who wins? Who loses? Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, there will be no clear winner. We will all lose, and the arguments will continue. Additional issues will surface. More energy and money will go to fighting the issues rather than stepping back, looking at the problem squarely, and working toward a solution.

One can argue, as does the University of Michigan, that there are more than 14 applicants for each available seat. How does one determine who gets the seat? The decision will never be an easy one. Regardless of who gets the seat and how strong his or her determination, those who are left out will not be satisfied.

This still does not address the question of diversity, however. Although students may not at first recognize the benefits of attending a school with a diverse student body, years after they have graduated they will understand that by necessity they have to cope in a diverse world. Global economics, regional and global marketplaces, global political affairs, and global ecology are concepts that must be dealt with today. These demand the ability to communicate and negotiate with diverse peoples. Tomorrow’s citizens and leaders will have to understand—and, more importantly, respect—the differences of all people. The responsibility of making this happen falls back on the educational systems—from preschool to postgraduate education.

Today there are many (including some prominent African Americans and Hispanics) who oppose affirmative action. However, affirmative action is a tool used to achieve diversity. Like any tool used to fix broken systems, affirmative action needs calibration. Whether the arguments favor or oppose the University of Michigan’s admission policy, they should all favor diversity.

Recently the Bush administration spoke in favor of abolishing the University of Michigan’s admission policy. Shortly thereafter, the president announced that he is approving a 5 percent funding increase for historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic serving institutions. The White House intervention only serves to confuse the issues. It seems they are sending a subtle message, favoring a return to the days of “separate but equal” educational systems, even though the high court has found that system illegal. They also send the message that affirmative action, as it exists today, is a broken system. The question that should be asked is, “How can affirmative action be fixed so that race is not a prevalent factor in affording all people equal opportunities in all their endeavors?”