The Lariat (Baylor U)The U.S. Supreme Court will reopen debate on one of the most controversial subjects in recent times: affirmative action. The Associated Press reported Monday that, "Justices will consider whether some white applicants to the University of Michigan and its law school were rejected unconstitutionally because of their race, under the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all under the law."
The decision will either mark fresh prospects for more affirmative action policies or strike a major blow to its already dwindling use in other colleges and universities across the nation. Proponents of affirmative action see a means of boosting minority enrollment numbers while opponents see a slippery slope of inequality against whites.
One's stance on affirmative action is closely related to his or her view of how "equality" in higher education is attained - naturally or artificially. The proponents' view maintains that it is necessary to consider race when students apply at universities in order to level the playing field between whites and minorities, ensuring true ethnic diversity and acceptance on college campuses.
Opponents believe that any such program that considers race in accepting applicants is nothing more than reverse discrimination. These groups point out that other colleges and universities are able to keep their standards and retain cultural diversity without affirmative-action-style rules being imposed.
They assert too, that assuming all whites are advantaged when compared with minorities completely leaves a large number of disadvantaged whites behind.
Despite the ever-present emotional baggage that is inherently tied to race relations, it is paramount that one look at the situation from logical footing.
The primary flaw in any bureaucratic law or guideline that artificially creates "equality" will almost always cause a reaction that has negative consequences - just like a law that unnaturally creates inequality, such as literacy tests at the polls.
With this in mind, universities and colleges should concentrate on the reasons why minorities are needing the extra boost that affirmative action gives them instead of simply allowing more to be accepted at the expense and discrimination of others (something that should be locked away in history forever).
Likewise, they should make use of their vast resources to arrive at a rational explanation for why whites tend to be dominant across college campuses in America. The focus should be at the root of the inequality - be it equalizing educational opportunities for minorities before college or otherwise.
Most will agree that the solutions to complex problems are usually, in fact, complex.
Disproportions in minority representation at colleges is an issue that must be resolved using fair means to all parties if the term "equality" is going to be employed. There is no quick fix for social disparity because the root of that inequality always resides in the individuals who make up a society.
For this is the reason that civil rights are given not to groups but to those individuals within the groups; each of us bears the responsibility in fairly solving this issue. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a minority himself, underscored this idea when he said, "Government cannot make us equal; it can only recognize, respect and protect us as equal before the law." - (U-WIRE) WACO, Texas
