6

Affirmative action's evolution │csmonitor.com Page 3 of 3

After Bakke, goals and set-asides were clearly unconstitutional. But what was less clear was how much emphasis colleges could give to race without crossing the line into impermissible reverse discrimination.

That is the question that the University of Michigan cases raise.

Some affirmative-action opponents argue that the US law should be colorblind. Race should never be a factor in college admissions, they say. Supporters say that because the playing field has been tilted against the vast majority of blacks from their birth, it would be wrong in a society that values diversity not to take into consideration the disadvantage that still travels with skin color.

The Bush team`s stand

The Bush administration has staked out a middle-ground position, declining to urge the justices to invalidate any consideration of race in such plans, but, still, arguing that the Michigan plans are unconstitutional.

Critics of affirmative action say economic disadvantage can and should be a plus factor in recruitment and admissions programs. But race or group identity should never serve as a proxy for disadvantaged status.

"The Constitution is about individuals and individual rights, including the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. It is not about groups," says Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law.

"A focus on the status of a racial group rather than a focus on the status of an individual takes us in the wrong direction," he says. "If colleges seek a student population that mirrors the racial makeup of America, he says, a large number of Asian-Americans and Jewish students will be shut out of the most elite schools regardless of their accomplishments.

"The question underlying the University of Michigan cases is why are so few African-American 17- and 18-year-olds academically competitive with white and Asian 17- and 18-year-olds," syad Mr. Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity.

"The answer to that question is not discrimination," Clegg says. "The answer is extremely high illegitimacy rates, poor public schools, and a culture that too often views studying hard as 'acting white.'"

He adds, "Those problems are not going to be solved by racial and ethnic preferences."

Professor powell says it is wrong to ignore the racial component in the continued unequal treatment of blacks in America. "Race means more than just skin color," he says. "It means either privileges and benefits that follow a certain group, or it means disadvantages and liabilities, and those two things end up being related."

Powell and other affirmative-action supporters say minority recruitment and selection efforts should be evaluated by their benefits to society as a whole, not simply for its potential impacts on whites.

"I think our society is better off because Colin Powell is secretary of state, and he says he was an affirmative-action beneficiary," Powell says. "But the benefit is to society, not just to him."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics and related links

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.csmonitor.com│Copyright © 2003 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email copyright@csps.com

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0328/p01s01-usju.htm 3/31/2003