Race-based admissions must end
The future of race-based college admissions once again lies in the hands of U.S. Supreme Court justices, who are currently considering a case challenging the University of Texas at Austin for its inclusion of race as a factor in the admissions process. The case, Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin,was brought by a Caucasian applicant, Abigail Fisher, who was rejected by UT in 2008 and is now claiming that the university discriminated against her based on her race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Christina Ellis | Daily Trojan
If the court were to rule in Fisher’s favor, against the university’s current policy of race-based affirmative action, their decision would be a victory for equality of opportunity for all hard-working citizens, regardless of the color of their skin. This would effectively move society closer toward an age in which people are truly judged based on the content of their character.
Last Wednesday, the justices began deliberating over affirmative action’s constitutionality, hearing oral arguments from both parties. A ruling that agrees with Fisher could lead to the adoption of race-neutral policies in public universities across the nation and for the sake of integrity and fairness in universities and the rest of society, the court must do so.
The court must consider how the UT Austin admissions process works and if it is constitutional. A state law mandates that all Texas high school seniors who rank in the top 10 percent of their class are accepted. The remaining applicants are considered based on traditional factors such as grades, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities — and race. UT defends its use of race-based admissions as a means to diversify its student body. Affirmative action has long served that beneficial purpose.
But college is a time when young people should be recognized for their positive attributes and potential contributions to the world, whatever color their skin might be. Emphasizing race as a factor of admission reduces applicants to mere statistics, re-drawing the very color lines that affirmative action aims to dissolve. Race is not, nor will it ever be, an accurate predictor of the contributions an applicant would make if accepted to a university.
An additional harm is that race-based affirmative action promotes the myth that individuals of historically disadvantaged backgrounds need the government as their protector and caretaker. These policies keep individuals dependent on the government for success rather than free them from discrimination. This fosters continued divisions along racial lines, focusing on the physical appearance of individuals instead of emphasizing their accomplishments.
To accept an applicant who is less qualified than another because he or she is a member of an ethnic minority contradicts what universities stand for, especially in a country that values hard work and is expected to award individuals based on merit.
If America is to move into a truly post-racism age in which people do not group themselves into narrow categories of ethnicity, the court must rule that UT’s policy is unconstitutional.
As America advances into an age of globalization, it remains counterintuitive and anachronistic to still be hung up on racial identification. Affirmative action policies keep the wounds of inequalities fresh, creating an endless cycle of racial tensions that detract attention from who individuals are beyond their skin color.
The decision made in this case could do one of two things: continue discriminatory policies in university admissions and remain rooted in a close-minded past, or move society forward toward a future that emphasizes true equality of opportunity.
Only once this paradigm shift occurs will the United States will break in to a post-racism era in where people are rewarded for their character and achievements rather than for surface-level and predetermined qualities such as skin color. There is no better place for this to take place than the nation’s universities, and the Supreme Court must make the decision that will spark this crucial shift.
Sarah Cueva is a junior majoring in political science and Middle East studies. Her column “Leaning Toward Liberty” runs Mondays.
For those against Affirmative Action: Can you think of a similar system that benefits Whites?
I’ll give you one, the Legacy system at many private universities.
20% of admitted and attending students at USC are Legacy’s while only 14% are the first in their family to go to college — and these figures are low compared to other universities.
Segregation was not that long ago folks! As a result there is a huge disparity between Whites and people of color when it comes to being admitted to a university as a Legacy student. A clear example of institutional racism.
This also applies for those of you speaking about merit. By now everyone knows that the only reason former President Bush was admitted into Yale was because his father went there too — Yes, George W. was a Legacy student.
If even the though of Affirmative Action angers you, then you should be outraged at the Legacy system. It’s been around much longer and it benefits one race (and class) over any other.
Sarah Cueva, I just gave you a great topic to write about. Now go on, do your research, and post the demographics of Scions at USC. Then tell us how the legacy system is fair, but affirmative action is not. /sarcasm
An excellent article. The “Open Minded” crowd need to READ & CONSIDER what is being said here.
When will these stubborn folk EVER transcend their skin color? Is it really just because they are innately LAZY?
affirmative action = pity invite
It’s sad that these debates still exist in our society today. Although I appreciate Susette’s comments and concerns above I can’t disagree with her more. I’ve walked on the USC campus numerous times over the previous couple of years and it appears that diversity is alive and well at that campus. It appears to be a true melting pot culture with the best of the best represented from all ethnic backgrounds. I don’t know if this Fisher in Texas had the grades to get in that school or not but the fact remains that race should not be a factor in accepting or eliminating someones college opportunities. My child is Latino but I certainly don’t want people looking at her as if she received admission onto that campus, in part, because of the color of her skin. I think that perception has a negative effect on anyones psychology when they feel that their success may be tied to race.
Sarah, look around USC. Geographically it sits in an area that its student body does not reflect. After a day watching national college football you can see crowd shots of predominantly white fans. Even with years of affirmative action policies in place, the American college campus to me seems no more diverse than when I attended USC in the 70s. Why do you think the government had to step in in the first place? Because of unfair admissions policies which discriminated against students based on race.
This movement afoot to keep government from protecting the relatively few students of color who have benefitted from affirmative action does not take history of discrimination against black students into consideration. Me chances are that if race were not a consideration, then Ms. Fisher still wouldn’t have been accepted, because her competition was against the vast majority white students not the few black and brown students Austin let in. But, the irony is, with the high number of Asian students at USC and other American campuses, white students may need the very policies they seek to dismantle.
Excellent article! Affirmative action policies need to be terminated in the workplace too! If Abigail Fisher’s claim is true then I certainly hope she wins her case and that it sets a precedent! If the human population was blind than there would be NO color discrimination and each individual would be chosen for right reasons!