TheOtherView
Opinions from around the country

On June 23, the Supreme Court handed down two important decisions on affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan. We applaud the court for upholding the constitutionality of affirmative action, which is an important tool used by universities to seek greater diversity. However, we believe that it should have upheld the systems at both the law school and the undergraduate program, rather than only the former.

In the first case, the Court ruled unconstitutional a system used by the undergraduate admissions office, which awarded a fixed number of points to all minority candidates. In the ruling, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that a student with artistic talent rivaling Picasso would only receive a five point (out of 100) boost, while minority students would automatically get 20 points.

We agree with the Court that an individualized admissions system — and the unquantified “plus” it gives to minority candidates — is ideal because it provides the fairest treatment to all applicants. However, we also recognize that many state universities lack the resources to give each of over 50,000 applications a thorough look. Unfortunately, many states, with huge deficits of their own, are cutting university budgets at a time when the number of students is at record levels.

These short cuts mean that every factor of admission — including SAT, GPA, extracurricular leadership, sports, arts, hardship and yes, minority status — must be assigned a point value. This system is not ideal, but it is the reality. To remove race from consideration because it is quantified while leaving sports, arts and leadership with point values is absurd.

While we are unsure of what the point value should be for race, we are certain that the Court was wrong in categorically stating that it can never be quantified. Striking down the point system creates a new impediment for schools with limited resources, and it may even force them to raise application fees, creating a further obstacle to applicants from working-class backgrounds.

In the second case, which challenged Michigan Law School’s use of affirmative action to pursue a “critical mass” of minority students, we applaud the Court’s decision to uphold the admission policy. Diversity is a very important goal for all universities. Universities should reflect the makeup of the larger community as a whole, and this is important for two reasons: To build a coherent minority community within the university, and to attract more minority students to that community.

This is a staff editorial from the Harvard Crimson at Harvard University.
This editorial was distributed by U-Wire.