Actual equality

The intrinsic benefits of all types of diversity, whether through performing arts groups or international perspectives in precepts, are manifested in many aspects of our campus experience. However, neither example is robust enough to warrant a legal justification for the integration of racial preferences into the college admission process. Advocates of affirmative action must settle for sweeping statements about the superiority of a non-uniform campus environment. It is critical to observe the intellectual futility in the context of law of evoking a vague ideal as a justification for treating one race more favorably than another. Recognizing the positive impact of racial and ethnic diversity is irrelevant to the discussion of affirmative action policies and is indicative of the claim’s self-destructive core: that it is impossible to specifically determine, and therefore regulate, the illusive perfect level of diversity.

So when did this all begin? Much of it started with the 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the landmark case which codified the use of racial preferences in admission decisions. It is no surprise that the nation’s highest arbiters of justice have groped and flailed in vain for the better part of the subsequent three decades to establish a coherent position of the Court. Typifying the bankruptcy of specificity that plagues the legal defense of affirmative action, the 2003 University of Michigan Law School ruling neglected to detail the connection between a hazily defined cultural nexus and a compelling state interest. Writing the majority opinion in favor of the school’s right to integrate race awareness into its admission process, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was unable to detail or quantify the benefits of campus diversity which are supposedly so strong that they warrant government action.

A far more specific and problematic rationale is to view methods of student selection as potential mechanisms for reparation distribution. A brief filed by the Carter administration in the 1978 case asserted a new moral imperative for discrimination in favor of approved minority groups. To contend that current and historical bigotry “makes it difficult fairly to evaluate the abilities and promise of each new applicant without taking his race into account” because African Americans must overcome more “non-academic hurdles” than their white peers is itself exclusive. The policy implications deny opportunities to students who are not a part of approved government minority groups. Amidst the intolerances and inaccuracies exists a germ truth — that the underrepresentation of minority groups on campus must be addressed.

The Daily Princetonian’s March 5 editorial implicitly suggests that the desired outcome in fact rests beyond the issue of race. Admirably advocating for Princeton to augment the demographics it educates, the Editorial Board misguidedly pursues the virtuous goal by a method which pits one racial group against another. The editorial reads, “In an ideal world, affirmative action would not be necessary. Unfortunately, that time has not yet come. Should affirmative action programs be banned, colleges and universities would lose one of the crucial ways in which they provide students with a well-rounded education.” With the expression of the most egalitarian justification of affirmative action emerges the verity that the principle in fact aims to ameliorate the societal blights of poverty and inequality.

That the unconscionable mass failure of the American public school system compounds other social forces to disparately impact racial minorities is an awful reality which is not most effectively addressed through the institutionalization of racial preferences in university admission processes. Instead, an approach which aims to help all those marred by the effects of poverty by looking at the status of the school which the applicant attended is much less divisive and even more effective. This would give more credit to kids who had succeeded in what might be deemed a failing school — a system which successfully addresses social context without leaving the impoverished students of Appalachia out in the cold. Minority children would still overwhelmingly benefit from the system, since students in failing schools are disproportionately of ethnic decent. It is critical to augment the non-uniformity of the student body while maintaining the principle of equal opportunity with which everyone begins. A preference system that does not favor one ethnicity over another is the best way to accomplish this goal.

David Will is a sophomore from Washington, D.C. He can be reached at dwill@princeton.edu.