President Bush announced Wednesday that the affirmative action quota system used by some colleges and universities is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case against the University of Michigan regarding their race-conscious admissions policies in March.
“I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity, in higher education,” he said, “but the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this goal is fundamentally flawed.”
As methods for racial integration in higher education are being debated in Michigan and consequently across the country, USM’s diversity plan is being updated to achieve an ideal diverse college environment.
In last Friday’s Student Senate meeting, the first one of the year, guest speakers Mary Kay Kasper, Nolan Thompson, and Kathleen Roberts talked about the diversity plan, the progress the University is making on issues of diversity, and what the Senate should do to help.
In this Diversity Plan, Kasper suggested the Senate specifically invite students of color to serve on the Senate, as well as host dinners to talk about issues of diversity on campus, among other action steps.
Senator and philosopher Daryl Morazzini disagreed with the plan, saying that it would “create new exclusivity,” and that it had to work both ways. He suggested a more European model of acceptance such as referring to people as Americans instead of African-Americans akin to how the British are just British, not African-British, or Asian-British and so on.
This supported his main idea that people are people, not labels.
Daryl Morazzini, you have hit the nail on the head.
This type of forced diversity is based upon many of the same premises as racism. It is discrimination.
“Our constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law,” Bush said.
To me it seems that ideal situation of racial integration and full acceptance of all is color-blindness. To see people as people, and judge them based on their accomplishments, not by the color of their skin.
It would be wonderful to see a University in which there is a broad spectrum of students, varying by skin color, nation of origin, sexual orientation, age, ability etc. etc. etc. all learning together, bettering themselves together with no thought as to what makes each of us different. Instead concentrating on why we are all here: to learn. To experience. To interact. To enlighten others and be enlightened.
I do not think that giving certain groups of people more of an advantage just because of their skin color is the way to accomplish this.
Given, the reasoning behind events and special care given to attracting and retaining a more diverse student population is not only valid, but very admirable. Racial integration is critical. However, the methods involved in affirmative action only accentuate the differences.
Picture this: A Student Senate comprised entirely of students of color. A white student comes in to observe, sits in the wings. He feels a bit disgruntled that there are no white students on the Senate. Does this make him a racist? Yeah, probably. Not only is he not completely celebrating the spectacular diversity on this Senate, but the student body voted these people in; they must be the best people for the job.
Last Friday, Nolan Thompson looked at the pale faces of the 31st Student Senate, and said that if he was a student coming in there he would be “put off” seeing no students of color on the Senate. Does that make him a racist? If it doesn’t, there seems to be a double standard here.
The goal of this diversity plan and programs and proposals similar to it at schools across the country is to get more students of color into secondary education. There have got to be racially neutral ways to improve opportunities for all, particularly for those of a lower socio-economic class.
I don’t want to see anyone turned away from education based solely on the color of their skin. That is discrimination and it sucks. The other part of that is not accepting someone into a school based solely on the color of their skin. That is also discrimination, and even though it is fraught with good intentions, it is just as wrong as turning someone away.
When I was being interviewed for this job last spring, one of the executive board members at the time wanted to know if I would actively pursue students of color to work on the paper.
No, I said. I will actively pursue anyone interested in writing or taking photos. I am really not very interested in what color they are. It doesn’t matter as long as they can write. What difference does it make what color they are or orientation or religion?
What the hell is going on?
To be honest, I don’t give a damn what color anybody is. I just want everyone to have a fair shake at things. That’s all. A color-blind, honest, fair shake.
I am idealistic. This I know. But I think that accentuating every little difference is not going to help us achieve our goals. Putting race under the spotlight is not going to help people accept each other more. Saying, “Holy cow! You two people are so completely different! Now get along, damn it!” is not productive.
We live in a progressive state. However, I think that affirmative action is going in the wrong direction to achieve total race integration. I think that we need to learn how to color-blind, not color-sensitive.