Affirmative action existed long before race, gender initiatives

In all of the recent debate about affirmative action, the one idea that pervades discussions concerning the college admissions process is that affirmative action is wrong because "qualified" individuals are passed over in favor of other individuals (women and minorities) who may not be as qualified. Their solution to this problem is simple: Colleges and universities should use a system of admissions based solely on a student's "merit." But what constitutes a student's merit?

The typical answer is that an applicant's merit should be measured primarily by his or her grade point average and SAT scores. These two criteria of merit lead to a number of difficulties. It has already proven an arduous task for universities to be able to distinguish between different GPAs from thousands of different high schools throughout the nation and world. And why would universities admit only students with the highest scores on a test proven to be biased along cultural, geographic and socio-economic lines? The ability of students to purchase hundreds of points via Kaplan and other SAT prep courses is certainly a skewed conception of merit. Consequently, strict adherence to these numbers would be a folly on the part of the universities.

For argument's sake, let's say that this meritocracy is, in fact, the fairest way for a university to assemble a freshman class. In the case of this university, we could then have a computer print out the first 1,600 names of students whose mathematical combination of grades and SAT scores entitle them to a place at the University. Obviously, this method has problems. Because we did not take diversity into account, as well as those factors that make an applicant unique, the very existence of athletic teams, performing arts groups and even science clubs would not be guaranteed. What should already be apparent, then, is that universities that claim to be champions of diversity must use factors other than grades and standardized test scores if they are to assemble the most diverse, well-rounded and socially-aware class they possibly can.

Many people would still argue that affirmative action is wrong not because it discriminates, but because it discriminates based on factors over which applicants have no control-race and gender. Universities throughout the nation-including Duke-have had three such admissions policies in place for quite some time. The first of these policies is legacy, whereby students whose parents, grandparents, etc. attended the university to which they are applying are given special consideration in the admissions process. In the case of Duke and many other universities in America, blacks were admitted only 30 years ago. This effectively eliminates most black Americans from the admissions privilege of legacy. Furthermore, the legacy admissions policy, to a lesser but considerable extent, has served as a version of affirmative action primarily for white male students. Another policy gives the children of large contributors special consideration in the admissions process. And the last policy, definitely a form of affirmative action, is one where universities promote geographic diversity in their incoming class by accepting students from all 50 states and from other countries.

Under this policy, students from states and even counties where a particular university has a relatively low representation in its student body are given special consideration in the admissions process. Geographic location is essentially a factor over which applicants have no control. This policy, which discriminates using the same premise as affirmative action (promotion of diversity), has received little or no scrutiny.

It seems that diversity does not become a problem until it is used as a term to denote racial composition. Many opponents of affirmative action argue that the goal to achieve diversity on campus is obviously fulfilled by admitting football players and band members, but that admitting students based solely on race (especially because they are black) is not necessarily consistent with this goal. They state that race is not a proxy for a viewpoint, or rather, that all black people do not think alike, and that admitting black students just because they are black therefore does not add to social and intellectual diversity on campus.

Race is, indeed, not a proxy for a viewpoint, but race does thread all black students through a commonality of experience. It doesn't matter whether a black student is an affluent, middle-class or poor young man or woman. Each has a chance of being passed by a taxi late at night-or by a job opportunity-simply because he or she is black. These experiences all add an outlook on American society that is invaluable both as a vestige of our nation's past and an indicator of its current social state.

So, in response to the common story of a qualified white male being denied a job or educational opportunity as a result of affirmative action, I caution you not to so easily subscribe to the notion that a less-qualified black applicant has undeservedly taken the spot. An applicant's qualification for a given position is, after all, a judgement that cannot accurately be made with quick glances at a few numbers. And besides, the position may have been filled by a white male from Wyoming who had a significantly lower GPA and SAT score, but whose parents are financially contributing alumni. Affirmative action, indeed.