DR. MARTIN Luther King Jr. Day passed this week, presenting a perfect opportunity to reflect on the United States' progress since King's death. In Michigan, an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative continues to be debated. If the initiative passes, Michigan state colleges and universities would be prohibited to use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions, thus promoting a "colorblind" society. While this colorblind society is in line with King's ultimate goal, ending affirmative action implies we have achieved a colorblind society -- a far cry from the truth. In Michigan, as well as here in Virginia and elsewhere, affirmative action remains a necessity to ensure diversity and equal opportunities for all.
The University currently does an adequate job of drawing minorities. Roughly 30 percent of students are minorities, in terms of race, background or country of origin. President John T. Casteen, III stated on the University Web site that the admissions process is consistent with the 2003 Supreme Court decision upholding the use of race as one factor in university admissions. To determine how the prohibition of affirmative action would affect the University, current examples of universities who do not use affirmative action must be studied.
In California, Proposition 209, an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative, was passed in 1996. Without affirmative action, California colleges and universities have seen large dips in minority enrollment. For example in 1997, African-Americans represented 7.8 percent of freshmen enrolled. Now, only 4.3 percent of freshmen enrolled are African-American. According to UC-Berkeley Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau in a March 27, 2005 Los Angeles Times piece, "Proposition 209 has created an environment that many students of color view as discriminatory." Birgeneau believes that some of California's most able students are denied a Berkeley education.
Proposition 209 has backfired because, simply, not all individuals have the same opportunities. A utopian world where we do not stereotype and do not form opinions based on anything but character is pure idealism. In reality, there are subtle biases people place on others based on some defining characteristic. These biases inherently deny some opportunities or success. Affirmative action aids in balancing these biases and diversifies the university population.
The removal of affirmative action at the University would have two levels of consequences, Chief Officer of Diversity and Equity William Harvey stated in an interview. On a symbolic level, the prohibition of affirmative action would represent a retreat of the progress the University has made over the years. On a realistic level, removing race as an admissions factor means other factors, such as standardized tests are more heavily weighted. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing reports that African-American, Latino and new Asian immigrants among other minorities score significantly worse than white students. Strong use of the SATs, the organization contends, results in freshman classes with few minorities and no significant gain in academic quality.
Perhaps some would argue diversity is not important in a university atmosphere. The most direct effect of the prohibition of affirmative action would be the reduced admission of minorities, specifically African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans. Those that do gain admission may feel isolated by the lack of other students of the same background. Consequently, other students of this background may avoid applying to a particular college because they feel a stigma exists against their particular group, compounding the lack of enrolling minorities.
Without diversity, students do not come in contact with as wide a range of people. In an age where the importance of international communication continues to grow, it is invaluable for college students to gain comfort in talking to varied individuals. As Admissions Dean John Blackburn pointed out in an interview, a less diverse class has a negative effect on even the majority.
While using race in admissions may irk some individuals, it remains the best way to ensure diversity for universities across the nation. A joint study by Harvard, Boston College and the University of Iowa evaluated admissions data from the University of California and determined that using socioeconomic status or educational factors, instead of race, would only moderately increase representation of minorities. By prohibiting universities from using affirmative action, they will lose a valuable tool in fostering diversity in their communities.
Anti-affirmative action laws only represent a step backwards. The laws would narrow down the range of people at universities, including our own. It makes the presumption that our society has already reached the point where, in Dr. King's words, people are "not judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Nearly 40 years after King's death, we still have work to do. We can only hope that the citizens of Michigan understand that.
Rajesh Jain's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rjain@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KING: Virginia’s felons deserve the opportunity to work without discrimination
By Michael King | 3 hours agoThe sealing law is one step to help place Virginia back on this path of treating its felons as equal citizens but it cannot be the last step.
SHRAUGER: We must fight against transportation deregulation
By Alex Shrauger | 2 days agoSpecifically, the reduction of funds in public transportation may leave University students stranded without convenient means of transport. But more broadly, the environmental impacts which deregulation may have are long-lasting.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
5 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
