Terry Swenson Viewpoints

Affirmative action will also assist the university in reaching their desired diversity quota. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that universities can consider race as one of the main

In the story Harrison Bergeron in the year 2081 everyone is equal, no one is smatter, better looking, stronger, faster, etc. than anyone else, but rather everyone is “average”. This story raises the idea of tall poppy syndrome. A derogatory term used to describe a social phenomenon in which people are resented, attacked, put down, and criticized by society because their talents or achievements place them above and distinguish them from their peers. This is evident in the characters Harrison Bergeron, George Bergeron, and the ballerina whose talents are being hindered by the government (handicapper general) in the story. Harrison Bergeron is and absurdly handsome, strong, genius who outpaces his peers.

The fact that, in most cases, a minority student will get accepted over a white student with the same or almost the same qualifications is causing controversy all over the nation. This is precisely the definition of affirmative action. In an excerpt titled Affirmative Action and the College Admissions Process from the book, 8 Steps to Help Black Families Pay For College, by Thomas and Will LaVeist, it is stated that, “affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups.” This leveling of the playing field leads to the very broad generalization and misperception that the policy is allowing less-qualified minorities to take the place of the more-qualified whites.

In eight University of California campuses where affirmative action is no longer implemented the enrollment of black students only declined by 17% and the enrollment of Hispanics declined only by 6.9%. Even without the use of it, minorities are still getting into colleges. There is no need for discriminatory programs like affirmative action because there is not a big difference between minority groups and whites anymore. If some person has the potential and desire to succeed they can succeed. Everyone can do anything they want to do if they have what is takes to enter the university or job.

The purpose of this action is to strive for equivalent open doors for everyone paying little heed to race or skin color. Race has always been a controversial factor in the college admission process. Critics who are supportive of the action say that colleges reach out toward minorities since they are the least diverse in the college environment. With the demographic they display they are urged most of the time to apply for college admission. Often these institutions offer some help to those minorities such

Thirdly, they point out that a diverse student body better prepares college students to interact and work with individuals of diverse backgrounds in the future. By creating an environment where students can be exposed to a racially diverse group of people, their interactions further reduce prejudice and misconceptions about race (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The amicus brief reveals that race is an inseparable component of an applicant 's’ experiences and should not be excluded from the admission officers’ consideration.

Politically speaking, the United States is a country founded on the principles of equality, one that strives to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally and have equal opportunities. Despite all of this, the United States is not predicated on equal outcomes and, as such, some people will naturally rise while others fall. To some, this may seem unfair, but the truth is that, guaranteeing equal outcomes for all people, would severely undermine the foundation on which the United States was built while also threatening its democracy since, to guarantee equal outcomes, some overriding governmental body would have to take the necessary steps to do so. Since affirmative action is a step toward guaranteeing equal outcomes – even when these outcomes should not be equal – it should be prohibited from having any place in the college admissions process. Instead, there should be more emphasis on guaranteeing equal opportunity, and this can be done by “strengthening public education…we must make certain that every child in public school can learn as much and go as far as his or her talents permit” (Summer, 2012, p. 3). Strengthening public education so that the standards are higher and there is a more rigorous curriculum would lift everybody up equally, and would therefore be more in step with American’s democratic ideals than admitting students into college simply based on

Even if the colleges are achieving their goals to get a diverse student body to the campuses, they fail to get those groups to interact.  In the article “The Lie About College Diversity,” Bruni’s interpretation on diversity explains that common college diversity programs are categorizing students together with similar backgrounds. Only a number of programs accept students to interact with fellow diversity students with different cultures, backgrounds or ethnic groups. These programs do not motivate students to reach out and share their thoughts with other groups because they could get rejected.  By learning other points of view and having diversity in the learning environment, it also helps individuals communicate better.  It also opens minds to ideas and concepts they might not have considered and provide them with

Additionally, not taking race into account allows universities to enhance their selection system. Not only does this dismiss the possibility of being influenced by ethnicity, but it rewards excellency in more qualified students. Since in society, people choose to award high-skilled positions to highly qualified people, it certainly makes sense to admit the most capable individuals. Louis P. Pojman, in his article “The Case Against Affirmative Action,” states that,

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan asserted that their policy was designed to promote diversity and ensure “unique contributions to the character of the Law School” (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The University of Michigan maintained that they did not employ racial quotas rather they systemically focused on improving diversity in each entering class. The University associated their policy to Regents of Uni. Cal. v. Bakke (1978) which addressed race in university admission decisions.

Having done so it would still need to be narrowly tailored so as not to unduly injure any associated groups or individuals. Powell determined that attaining a diverse student body in an institution of higher education was a compelling state interest. In order to be narrowly tailored to this interest, the institution should use race as a "plus" factor. The quota system that the University of California applied set aside positions for minority students and focused on having a diverse statistical surface rather than attaining actual diverse backgrounds. Rather, as was done at Harvard, it was expected that all students should be considered together and race used as a bonus for minorities that would help account for the special perspective such students could bring to the campus (Schauer 589-597). While Powell's outline for programs had plenty of dissenters, none of them ever made it to a prominent position in the court system and so, since 1978, the rules of Bakke have been the proverbial law of the land. That is, until recently.

admissions policies are themselves finding that the only way to enlarge the minority presence in college without such policies is to improve dramatically the

The concept of race based admission policy is used in colleges to create diversity in campuses, but to some it is another kind of discrimination. According to Stacy Teicher Khadaroo staff writer of “A sticky week for college admissions as affirmative action debate heats up; After a leaked Justice Department document, tensions roil over the use of race at top universities such as Harvard. But many other selective schools may be quietly shifting away from the practice,” top colleges uphold the same commitment to create diversity and using race in admission to accomplish it instead of merit or income. Nonetheless, Department of Justice spokeswomen, Sarah Isgur Flores, is willing to investigate the effects of affirmative action, "The posting

The equal opportunity that affirmative action provides has also increased the amount of minority applicants applying to each school. It has “resulted in doubling or tripling the number of minority applications to colleges or universities, and have made colleges and universities more representative of their surrounding community” (Messerli). Since the playing field has been evened, it has encouraged more of those who are disadvantaged because of their ethnicity to apply for and get admitted into college. However, the quotas cause schools to admit under qualified students of minor races who don’t meet the limit over highly qualified students who’s race has reached the limit.

UT’s goal of diversity is flawed and unobtainable. UT never provides a definition of critical mass which is needed when diversity is such an important goal. Obtaining and measuring diversity is not a case of “I’ll know it when I see”, some concrete goal must be in mind. UT’s goal of diversity includes a select number of minorities in every classroom, and this goal is plainly unobtainable. There only two ways to ensure that classrooms have the desired number of minority students. The first is to put in place rigid course requirements and schedule, but doing so would remove the liberty of the college experience. The second goal would be to establish a quota to ensure that minorities would be present in all classrooms. The usage of a quota to