LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Monday, May 20, 2002 - The Michigan Daily - 5 VIEWPOINT Thle present need for affirmative action P Affirmative action is an inappropriate tool for achieving diversity To THE DAILY: It is now clear to me, as it should be to every other member of the University community, that affima- t ive action is headed for a constitu- tional showdown in the highest court of the land. The time has finally come to settle this issue once and for all. Is affirmative action constitution- al or is it not? I think not! It is obvious that many students and members of the University Administration support affirmative action. They argue that it is the only way to maintain an amalgamation of diversity. I urge those of you who have made up your mind to give serious consideration that affirma- tive action may not be the best possi- ble way in which the administration can increase diversity. I beg mem- bers of the administration to recon- sider the spending of millions of dollars to defend affirmative action and consider other options. For those of you who have not yet made up your mind, I encourage you to con- sider the argument against affirma- tive action. As Pat Buchanan would put it, "The University of Michigan has neither the moral nor the Constitu- tional authority to discriminate against applicants." This certainly includes reverse discrimination. "A true respect for civil rights requires we put an end to all forms of dis- crimination, including reverse dis- crimination. This means abolishing set-asides, mandatory admittance r and quotas." The practice of reward- ing extra points on an application for race is an inappropriate way to judge an individual's academic potential and an insult to minority intelli- gence. The University should aban- don race as a factor in favor of a color-blind admissions policy. The University's argument is heavily based on their preference for diversity in the student body. While the administration has made a strong and convincing case for diversity, they have ultimately failed to consid- er other options for achieving this. These options include more class- room space to increase the overall size of the student body to facilitate more minorities, targeted outreach programs to encourage minority stu- dent interest in the University and University charter schools in devel- oping minority areas. It is also a gross misuse of student funds to pur- sue this unfair policy through the courts. The millions spent and the millions more that will be spent could have been used to reduce the cost of tuition so that more financial- ly disadvantaged students could afford to attend the University - the vast majority of whom are also minority students. It is with this in mind that I implore the University to affirma- tively abandon this policy of reverse discrimination. There is no constitu- tional basis for a public institution, such as the University to take an active role in influencing our society in this way. Therefore, there is no compelling authority for administra- tors, regents or the University presi- dent to support affirmative action. NicK WAUN Candidate for the Usmversity Board ofRegents Freedom fighting can be a legitimate tactic TO THE DAILY: Luke Smith's column "Luke Skywalker: 9/11-ing the Death Star," (05/13/02) is a creative look at the subjects of terror and "freedom fighters," but his assertions about the relationship between the two are overstated, to say the least. Smith argues that "the term terrorist is interchangeable with the term free- dom fighter." He is correct in asserting that indeed great powers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union have always called their preferred rebel groups "freedom fighters" and those they disliked "terrorists." But the fact is that the two terms are not interchangeable. Terrorism is a political tool that involves targeting civilians in a way intended to inspire, well, terror Some perfect examples are the Sep. 1 attacks, the rape of Nanking, the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and (to keep Smith's analogy going) the destruction of the planet Alderaan by the Evil Empire to keep other star systems in line. One can be a freedom fighter and not use terror as a tool. Luke Skywalker's raid on the Death Star was an attack on a strictly military target, intended not to destroy imnocents and inspire terror, but to take out a weapon of terror. When Smith makes the assumption that taking up arms against a repressive regime is tantamount to terrorism, then he implicitly makes the argument that any established government is legitimate. This is a dangerous assumption. While democracy is certainly on the rise around the globe, there are still a frightening number of regimes that are repugnant in their disregard for human rights. They murder their own citizens, jail and torture others for expressing beliefs not shared by the government and support acts of terror But one thing Smith hits on the head is that the U.S. has a long history of supporting terror by backing "free- dom fighters" who use terror as a weapon. However, the U.S. also has a long history of backing brutal dictators if it serves our strategic interests. The answer is not a blanket rejection of "freedom fighters," but a foreign poli- cy that genuinely supports democracy and human rights. The U.S. at present supports oppressive regimes like the Saudi and the Pakistani governments because it keeps the oil flowing our way. What if instead of tying our aid to these countries to demands for oil, we tied our aid to demands for freedom? RYAN RYNBRANDT Rakham student BY SARAH BooT No one can dispute that racial diversity is a crucial component of higher education. The ability to appreciate different perspec- tives enables people to thrive in the global economy. This is why corporations such as Motorola look to the University for recruits before they look at schools with a substan- tially lower rate of diversity like Dartmouth. Obviously, these companies value the facet of our education at the University that enables us to learn to interact with people from different races and cultures. This is why our group-work, that we all find so aggravat- ing at times, is essential. Our exposure with diversity gives usan edge. No one can dispute that the public educa- tion system in grades K-12 is segregated and grossly inadequate. At the Salvation Army in Detroit, I tutor aboy who is a seventh-grade honors student. At our last session, we worked on three-digit addition and subtrac- tion. Obviously, there is a very real problem here. Seventh-grade honors students at sub- urban middle schools are already light years ahead studying algebra. If society were not plagued with social injustices, affirmative action would not be necessary to achieve diversity. Look at what happened as a result of the court rulings against affirmative action policies in Texas and Georgia. The enroll- ment rate of minorities dropped significantly. So, why did that happen? The public educa- tion received by many minority students and the racial prejudices that still exist today have a significant impact on their competitiveness in the college admissions process. Opponents of affirmative action claim that it is ineffective because it does not address the root of the problem - primary and secondary education. It may be true that if we simply fix the current problems facing children in grades K-12 then we will achieve this diversity. But please, tell me how you propose to fix the problems with public edu- cation. There have been great debates about vouchers and accountability, but we are not really any closer to a solution. This does not mean we should stop searching for answers, but why should higher education wait around for these problems to be corrected first? I came to the University from St. Joseph, Mich., a small; predominately white middle- class town in southwest Michigan that has an amazing public school system. Across the river from my small town lies Benton Har- bor, a city with inadequate schools that is composed of mostly low-income blacks. There is a great deal of racial tension between these communities, and I believe that much of it stems from ignorance. I guess you could say that before enrolling in the University, my exposure to different races and cultures was minimal. I suspect the same is true of many students who come from suburban areas similar to my own. There are segregated areas like this across the country. I use this example to highlight the value of diversity in our education - in this case the societal value. Exposure to different races and cultures not only makes us more marketable as potential employees, but it makes us more aware of the realities that our society faces. Through exposure to different races, we can better bridge gaps of misun- derstanding and combat the apathy that many suburbanites feel toward working fur solutions to societal problems that do not directly affect them. This exposure is what is necessary to improve the learning condi- tions in grades K-12. There are a variety of factors that have led us to our current state of public education. Tolerance and under- standing of different races are crucial if we are ever going to be able to work together to solve these deeply-rooted problems. So, don't say we should fix K-12 first and then we'll have diversity. It is not even an issue of the chicken and the egg. Itis clear that if we are to achieve the racial equality that so many of us dream of, then we must continue to use affirmative action to break down the economic barriers that keep minorities from gaining admission in higher education and the social barriers that prevent us from working together to make changes. The University victory in these affirma- tive action court cases is a great step in the right direction. I hope that students main- tain an active role in these cases as they approach the Supreme Court. Itis certainly exciting to be a part of something so big, so historical. However if the Supreme Court does rule in our favor, everyone must understand that it does not end there. Critics of affirmative action are right in saying that the problems of K-12 should be solved. Students of the University who have expo- sure to other races and who understand the gravity of the situation that society faces in respect to failing schools should continue in their future endeavors to strive for long- term solutions to the problems of racial inequality. Our ultimate goal should be to shape ourselves into a society that no longer has a need for affirmative action. Boot is an LSA senior andpresident of the Michigas StudestAssembly Deconstructing the decision KEVIN MCNEIL ANARBOR'S IGHTS DE aw School School, is the same that would be given Dean Jeffrey applicant with "an Olympic gold me L ehman pro- PhD in physics, the attainment of age5 claimed that last class otherwise lacking anyone over week's Grutter deci- the experience of having been a Vietn sion was "A tremen- boat person." Judge Boggs rightly poi dous victory for that equating these extraordinary an higher education." The achievements with mere group status University would like only misguided, but also disingenuou us to interpret the rul- Law School's stated desire for exper ing as an unequivocal affirmation of the diversity is really a front for achieving t Law School's policies. Little in the opinion, ed racial enrollment levels. however, can confirm this conclusion. The extent to which the Law S In fact the majority opinion tries to sell will go to achieve these targeted1 Bakke v. University of Califomia Board of enrollment levels is staggering, a fi Regents as the definitive guide without that the majority opinion dismisse acknowledging that the decision is at best, average white or Asian applicant w unclear. As Judge Danny Boggs points out LSAT score of 164-166 and a GPA of in his dissent, "reasonable minds can and 3.49 had about a 22 percent chan do differ on the holding, if any, to be found admission while an under-reprrs in Bakke with respect to the diversity ratio-, minority applicant with similar crede nale."Boggs dissent discredits the majority was guaranteed acceptance. Also, the position, but also examines the Law School stops considering majority School's stated goal to achieve a "critical cants below certain LSAT and grade mass" of under-represented minority appli- levels while under-represented appl cants. The majority is silent on why diversi- enjoy 80 percent admission rates. It a ty is a compelling state interest, merely that two different admission systems stating that itsis based solely upon Bakke - one for majority applicants, wh and accepts that a "critical mass" of minori- summarily rejected at certain LSAT ty students is not a quota. GPA levels and another for under-t The Law School offers that the "diversi- sented minorities who nearly alway ty" it seeks to achieve through its race-based automatically admitted. This two-trac admission policies is a diversity of "experi- tem seeks to achieve a "critical mas ences, outlooks and idea." Preference given under-represented minority students,A to an under-represented minority in the the Law School vigorously contend application process, according to the Law broad range even when enrollment n to an Idal, a 50 in a 30, or amese nts out d rare is not s. The iential target- chool racial nding s. An ith an f 3.25- ce of ented entials e Law appli- point icants ppears exist to are T and repre- ys are k sys- tss" of which s is a it data indicates itsis nearly always 13.5 percent. "Critical mass" is really a quota in disguise. Even if one were to accept the "critical mass" on its face, Boggs rightfully ques- tions how a prescribed number of under- represented minorities contribute to academic diversity in the first place. The only evidence offered by the Law School is a study conducted by Psychology Chair Patricia Gurin. The study, prepared only for the trial's purposes, attempts to frame the benefits of a diverse student body in terms, according to Boggs, that simply do not sat- isfy strict scrutiny. Boggs casts doubt upon the study for its many "empirical and methodological defects," by the woman who no less heads the residence advisor's required diversity indoctrination course, Psychology 405.. Boggs' dissent concludes by stating that the Law School's plan does not seek to achieve diversity as a means for educational ends, rather that it "seeks racial numbers for the sake of the comfort that those numbers may bring." His conclusion is the best appraisal yet of the University's racial- ly-motivated practices. The University continues to fool itself into believing that these concerns can be dismissed and offers as its defense an intensely divided decision that will not stand Supreme Court review. Kevin McNeil can be reached at kmcneil@umich.edu.