If you think affirmative action polices don’t have a place in higher education, consider John Ogbu and Jack Grubman.

John Ogbu is a noted anthropology professor at the University of California at Berkeley; Jack Grubman is the discredited Wall Street analyst who hyped stocks in an effort to get his child into an exclusive New York City preschool.

Think out of the box for a moment, and you will understand that their stories illustrate volumes about failed expectations and connections. And they illustrate why affirmative action isn't passé.

In his new book, Ogbu argues that black children are their own worst enemies in the classroom. After studying student achievement for nearly three decades, he asserts that many black students are hindered by a culturally reinforced proclivity to underachieve academically for fear of being seen as “acting white.” As he told The New York Times, “There are two parts of the problem, society and schools on one hand and the black community on the other hand.”

To a point, he is right.

Minority kids who think that getting an education is a repudiation of a cultural heritage have got it all wrong. And there is blame to go around, from black parents who aren’t involved in their children’s lives, and don’t instill in their souls the importance of learning, to teachers and public school systems that don’t hold kids to standards of excellence.

But Grubman’s story illustrates why bootstrapping alone isn’t sufficient. Money, influence and opportunity play roles in where we end up. Grubman tapped access to power to seek a place for his child in a preschool that New Yorkers see as a gateway to an elite college. As bizarre as that sounds, it certainly isn’t unimaginable that he would pull similar strings for college admission or ask for the full measure of his child’s resume to be considered if the child’s grades didn’t measure up.

Grubman’s episode also proves that we don’t live in a pure meritocracy where performance is all that counts. Grades are part of the admissions equation. So are references and admissions essays. But there are other dirty little admissions secrets: whether mommy or daddy attended the university; ties to major donors; and, of course, a variety of nonacademic qualifications such as musical, artistic or even athletic talent. College admissions, like hiring decisions in the real world, are subjective, in part because qualifications are in the eye of the beholder.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the affirmative action issue for the first time in nearly three decades, let’s hope the court understands it isn’t issuing a ruling in a vacuum. We live in a world with real economic gaps and real injustice. The court’s role is in part to recognize injustices of opportunity and make them right in the least obtrusive way.

The high court can’t be expected to light a fire under academically lax parents, students and teachers. But it should use the University of Michigan case to affirm race as one of several legitimate admissions considerations. The court must preserve the opportunities for qualified minority candidates to compete and achieve both inside and outside of ivy-draped walls.

Affirmative action isn’t about grossly compromising standards to promote the touchy-feely warmth of an ethnically diverse campus. Frankly, the choices are between A and B students, not C and D applicants.

Jim Mitchell is an editorial writer and columnist for The Dallas Morning News. He can be reached at (jmitchell@dallasnews.com).

Blacks and Hispanics aren’t as smart as Caucasians or Asians. All blacks and Hispanics need extra help to get into college. Blacks and Hispanics can’t succeed without special treatment.

No one in their right mind would make such statements. Yet, this is the University of Michigan Law School’s message with its policy on admissions regarding race.

The university has a point system for applicants, which was printed in Newsweek. On this scorecard, being from an “under represented” minority group gets 20 points. The difference between a 3.0 and a 4.0 GPA is also 20 points. It’s more points than the essay is worth. It’s the same amount for being economically disadvantaged.

The idea is that blacks and Hispanics naturally have experiences that will enrich the campus and make it possible for others to learn about other cultures in an out-of-classroom setting. Think of how much more you’ll learn by talking to a black student from a middle-class suburban family instead of an Asian student from a middle-class suburban family.

The idea of requiring racial diversity on college campuses is a tad misguided. The color of your skin doesn’t make you a more or less interesting person. Having a class with a black student doesn’t necessarily improve your understanding of all black people. Many things affect your view of the world and the type of person you are other than how light bounces off you.

It can be said that what all groups want is respect. Respect as individuals and respect as a culture. Lowering the bar for a different race is an insult to those who would’ve made it regardless of their appearance. Under affirmative action, black students or Hispanic students have asterisks tattooed on their foreheads that say they were held to a lower standard. They are victims of society and should be pitied. This is something that carries over to all aspects of affirmative action.

Any accomplishment is dimmed by the idea that the person who did it got bonus points for his or her skin and probably didn’t do as well. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, and usually it’s not.

I haven’t even mentioned Caucasian students left out by these policies. They worked just as hard. They did just as well. However, a fluke in their heritage keeps them from achieving their goal.

It’s not fair to anyone, so why is it there? Why are you depriving some groups of a quality education and others of their dignity? In a snippet from Newsweek, the former president of the university said he believes in the theory that blacks and Caucasians are so different that learning about one another is a task as large and important as any class a student will take. However, both groups have been in America so long that the perceived culture gap is not as vast as advertised.

President Bush and 65 percent of the country are behind the push against the University of Michigan policy. It will probably be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court like the Bakke case, which eliminated quotas 25 years ago.

There will undoubtedly be an uproar, but posterity may mark it as the case where America took the training wheels off race relations.

Patrick Jennings is a freshman economics major from Melbourne, Fla. He can be reached at (p.a.jennings@tcu.edu).