AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN UNIVERSITIES
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy. Affirmative action's opponents usually present it as a policy of quotas when this is not the case. Affirmative action simply means allowing race as one of the factors in admission (in this context).

The policy's supporters say that is necessary to ensure racial diversity. Opponents say that merit should be the only criteria used in admissions.

I happen to think affirmative action is fine. Bear in mind, that affirmative action only pertains to admissions, not to graduation. It simply affects who gets in, not who graduates. It has no bearing on the value of the university's degrees or its standards. If a minority can't hack it, he or she will quit, just like a white. Where exactly is the problem? Affirmative action doesn't guarantee anyone success. It's just giving them a chance. It's not allowing anyone to cut in line, only to get into line in the first place.

Critics suggest that someone who gets into a college "only because" of affirmative action is "stealing" a place from a qualified applicant. Are they? Affirmative action is meant to supplement, not replace, academic criteria. When affirmative action is applied, it allows qualified minorities to get in, perhaps over slightly more qualified whites. It might be a black with a 1400 SAT score getting into Yale and a white with a 1430 being on the wait-list. Can anyone say that the guy with the 1400 SAT score doesn't belong? The idea of the unqualified even being involved in the process is a myth.

Furthermore, critics scoff at allowing racial diversity a value in and of itself. Yet, the university takes measures to ensure geographic diversity. If everyone at Yale came from Connecticut, it would be a pretty boring place. The point of diversity is that it allows you to meet people with different opinions and from different backgrounds, thus hopefully permitting your own point of view to evolve and expand.

People act like this is superfluous, but in fact it's at the heart of the university experience. The goal of education is not simply to teach students specific stuff, but to teach them how to learn. A good university teaches you how to think, so you can educate yourself once your formal schooling is over, so you can think critically for yourself. If you go to a bad university, then you simply stop learning once you graduate. Learning how to think is a prerequisite for learning any particular topic.

When I went to college, I was a pretty standard partisan liberal. But my roommate of three years was a libertarian and grandson of a famous conservative newspaper columnist. Because of knowing him, I was exposed to views that I'd never heard of in my little circle of friends in high school. As a result, my political views were somewhat different, and more profound, than they were when I entered college. All of this had nothing directly to do with my particular major, math, but I was a more educated human being as a result.

Nevertheless, I could accept race being eliminated from the admissions process. But only under the following condition: that all other criteria, other than purely academic, be eliminated as well. No critieria for geographic balance. No preferences to those whose relatives donated lots of money. No preferences to those whose fathers were famous alumni (the president is perhaps the most famous beneficiary of this preference that conservatives conveniently ignore). No preferences to people simply because they can shoot a basketball or throw a football 70 yards. Eliminate all preferences other than grades and test scores and I'd be happy to concede the dismantlement of affirmative action.

Until then, I don't want to hear anyone complain that affirmative action is wrong but these other, equally arbitrary and non-merit based, preferences are acceptable. Be consistent, one way or the other.