Mistake in Michigan

On Dec. 13, Judge Patrick J. Duggan of Detroit's Federal District Court upheld the University of Michigan's current affirmative action plan, which gives all black, Hispanic and Native American applicants a 20-point boost on the school's 150-point admission scale. Many liberals view the decision as a victory; but even as an affirmative action supporter, I consider Michigan's approach unjust and self-defeating.

The university grants a candidate "extra points" for a variety of reasons, including a high-quality essay, athletic participation, geographic location and parental alum status. These reasons can be divided into two categories--merit and non-merit. Clearly, a strong essay or a commitment to athletics is deserving of merit, whereas a person's skin color, residence or parents are hardly indicative of achievement. In lumping these two separate and distinct categories together, the University of Michigan heads down the wrong path.

The university promotes its system as a means of ensuring a "diverse" student body. Unfortunately, Michigan makes the awful mistake of assuming that skin color or geographic location necessarily determines a student's viewpoint. This is precisely the reason that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gets so angry when people question his "belief" in conservative values, as though a black judge must be a Democratic liberal. Likewise, a Hispanic applicant may not represent the thoughts and culture of his or her heritage any better than a white student, and someone from Iowa may know more about the stock market than the livestock.

Blanket point boosts for minorities ignore the reality that every individual has a different experience. I would think that the black student from a poor, inner-city neighborhood would have a better claim of injustice than the black student from an affluent suburb. It seems downright insulting to assume both of these candidates share an identical, uniquely "black" perspective, simply because of their skin color.

Michigan's affirmative action only propagates stereotypes about minorities and affirmative action in general. The fact is, we should only consider race and geographic location on a case-by-case basis. Michigan's plan, grouping all minorities together, may seem like a simple solution, but it only hinders the advancement of equality in the long run.

The minute we presume that all minorities share a common and unique outlook because of their skin color, we revert to a segregationist mentality. Affirmative action is only effective when we develop a true, rich diversity, not one based on numbers and superficial appearances.

--Colin K. Jost