Press "Enter" to skip to content

Admissions policies land universities in court

 

How did you get into college? Was it your excellent grades? Your athletic ability? Your abundance of extracurricular activities? Or was it because of your race?

Decades ago, a white, middle-class student could very easily get accepted to the school of their choice while minority races were overlooked. Various actions were put in place to change this, such as affirmative action amendments in various states. Affirmative action in the United States is meant to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants based on “color, religion, sex or national origin.”

While this practice was needed in a country that was trying to make up for decades of racism, in some instances it goes too far. Affirmative action allows universities and other public institutions to set racial or gender quotas. These actions have been criticized as a form of reverse discrimination.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard the case Schuette, Attorney General of MI v. Coalition to Defend, et al. The attorney general wants the court to uphold “Proposition 2,” a constitutional amendment adopted in 2006 but struck down by an appeals court. The proposition prohibits Michigan’s public universities, colleges and school districts from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment for any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

In the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, a white resident of Michigan applied to the University of Michigan Law School but was not accepted. She sued, citing the school’s practice of using race as a factor in admission.  Grutter lost because the court said the school uses race as only one of many factors in each  individual review of applicants.

Meanwhile, Gratz v. Bollinger was heard at the Supreme Court, which looked at the undergraduate admissions practices at the University of Michigan. In undergraduate admission, “underrepresented minorities” were automatically given one-fifth of the points needed for acceptance to the school. In this case, Gratz won because the court said that the school’s use of racial preferences violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. The judge said this practice was not narrowly tailored and did not provide individualized consideration.

During the last Supreme Court session, the justices heard a similar case as the current one but this one came from Texas and focused on a specific affirmative action practice. The court sent that case back to the lower court to take another look at it.

In a November 2012 election poll, a majority of Oklahoma voters voted ‘yes’ to Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment that would end affirmative action in college admissions and employment.

I am in favor of this. The time has come when much of the country is on equal ground. Middle-class white males should have equal opportunity to get into college as middle or low-class minorities. Instead of looking at race, gender or nationality, look at drive, intelligence and work ethic. Yes, we want a diverse school and work environment but we also want a stimulating and ambitious environment.

 

Email this to someonePrint this pageShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *