Like many Americans, the latest Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action has me confused. Let me be honest with you. This is my fourth attempt at writing this column. My lovely wife has already reminded me that no matter what I say some one will take it wrong. That’s a risky I am willing to accept because I think it’s so important as a nation to think this thing through, to borrow a wedding vow, for better or worse.

No one can argue with the goals of affirmative action. Everyone should be guaranteed an equal opportunity. There are literally thousands of folks who have benefited from programs designed to broaden opportunities for the nations minorities. According to the polls, 68 percent of Americans favor some sort of mechanism to assure racial diversity while74 percent are opposed to racial quotas (USA Today). Most blacks, 70 percent, favor affirmative action while most whites, 68 percent, do not. That statistics alone says a lot about America. For whatever reason, most blacks believe they need some kind of government-mandated edge to be successful in 2003. Most whites believe that edge is unfair at its best and discriminatory at its worst. Most argue it clearly flies in the face of the 14th amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing policies based on race.

Here’s why the University of Michigan ruling is so troubling to many Americans. The justices, by a vote of 6 to 3, struck down the practice of using a point system where minority applicants were given 20 preference points in the admission process based strictly on their skin color. Talk about “in your face” discrimination! But the justices, by a 5 to 4 vote, upheld Michigan’s right to use a modified admissions program for their law school that guaranteed “a critical mass” of 13 to 18 percent minorities, based on a compelling need to construct a diverse college campus. The message: you can’t award points to a student based strictly on skin color but you can take race into account when building a diverse student body. We should all be able to live with that notion in a perfect world. Kids will learn more about themselves and their world by being exposed to different ideas and cultures.

The problem with affirmative action and the Michigan ruling is that someone is always going to get hurt. It makes winners and losers. And those that lose are not likely to forget. Without the “critical mass” factor Michigan says blacks would compromise only 4 percent of last years’ law school admissions. With the “critical mass factor” that number increases to about 15 to 18 percent. In other words, 52 white students who scored higher on entrance exams and overall grade points were denied admission last year to make room for, according to the universities own records, lesser academically qualified black or minority students. That hurts. This is the salt poured on the wound that won’t go away overnight, especially if you are the student dumped or the parent of a child “sacrificed” for the good of the masses. I have personally experienced this kind of “sacrifice” or “critical massing” in my own professional career. Two of my children have also been exposed to that kind of quota system in our state college admissions practices. I guess the lesson I forgot to tell them is that sometimes the game is rigged so that those the score the highest or work the hardest don’t get it.

To make matters worse, one of the lawsuits filed against the U of M was from a white girl in a low-income neighborhood. NBC news recently documented how a black student with nearly the same academic accomplishments gained entrance to the university, and got a full ride scholarship. Here’s the stinger. Her father is a very wealthy Vice President in the Ford Motor Company. Why was race even considered in this case? With a strong family base and plenty of money did this student need the help? Wouldn’t it have served the student body better to have a young nearly poor woman, the first in her family, being admitted to the University? Wouldn’t her life experiences be just as valuable as the life experiences of a rich kid from a rich neighborhood who happens, by no choice of her own, to be black? Judge the students based on the content of their character, the achievements, their test scores, and their merit, not on the color of their skin.

And that’s the nut of the argument that bothers most of America. We all have a built-in sense of fair play. It’s not fair to be discriminated against no matter the color of your skin. It wasn’t right a hundred years ago and it isn’t right now. It’s not fair for some one to be given an immediate edge just because they are black or white or green or purple. Those supporting the ruling say all they want is a level playing field. No they don’t! They want a 20-yard head start to the goal. What they call opportunity is just spotting the competition 20 points before the opening gun. And with more and more black students coming from middle to upper middle class, solid two parent homes, spotting points isn’t needed.

“The court attempted to split the difference on an issue in which there is only a “yes” or “no” answer,” says Clint Bolich of the Institute of Justice. “Will government be permitted to discriminate in educational opportunities on the base of race? Unfortunately, the courts decision is a tragedy for all Americans.”

I won’t go that far. And I won’t go as far to say affirmative action should be scrapped without something to take its place. I do believe colleges need diversity and support programs that accomplish this task within the context of the Constitution. We only grow to understand those with different experiences when we are exposed to them. But equality is a nagging notion that hides away deep in your soul like a headache just behind your eyes. You know that it is there but you just can’t get a hold of it to make it go away.

In truth, most Americans just wish affirmative action would go away or at least wish we could all sit down and talk about its short comings without being labeled racists. We need to come up with something better that doesn’t pass sins on from one generation to the next. Florida and California are both experiencing some success using socio-economic factors and other criteria to ensure fairness and balance while committing themselves to racial diversity.

Sadly, though, the Supreme Court hasn’t done us any favors. We all have to tough this one out. Ward Connerly, the Board of Education Regent who led the drive to end affirmative action in California may have put it best. “The court made a very ambiguous ruling---and a sickening one. It left the nation in a position of agony. We will be fighting this battle for another 25 years or more.”

Al Ruechel, Copyright 2003, All Rights Reserved

Like today's commentary? Hate it? Send your comments here..

© 2003 Premiere Radio Networks. All rights reserved.
Please Review Our Privacy Policy. For Technical Assistance, please click here.