A professor once taught me “Diversity does not equal equality.” I commend him for this, framing the idea of diversity in a way I have never encountered. There is a difference between the two and they rarely, if ever, live in harmony.
Diversity in a post-secondary institution is important to cultivate a prosperous learning environment – that is understandable. Universities across the country have preached that it is essential to the very foundations of an education. Affirmative action policies help cultivate the diverse environment they are hoping to accomplish.
But there comes a point where one has to question when diversity trumps equality. There is a case that has been recently presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend
Affirmative Action, that hopes to tackle this very issue.
In 2003, the Supreme Court decided in Grutter v. Bollinger that the use of race in college admissions “does not unduly harm nonminority applicants.” This allowed the University of Michigan to continue to use race as a factor when admitting law school applicants.
Fast-forward to 2006, when Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preference in college admissions. This is the basis for the current Supreme Court case.
It is a muddled problem best explained by Garrett Epps in The Atlantic: “Can the people of a state, by majority vote, make it unlawful for colleges and universities to use race-based affirmative action in admissions – which is perfectly legal under the Constitution?”
That is the problem Schuette v. Coalition is trying to answer.
An institution can never achieve diversity while adhering to the principles of equality. It is understandable that a university would want to promote diversity in the classroom, but does adding emphasis on race during the admission process solve anything?
There is a larger problem that needs addressing. Resolving this issue may eliminate the need for race-based admission policies or affirmative action itself.
The disparity of minorities in universities does not stem from the fact that they are minorities, but they come from disadvantaged school systems that not only plague inner cities, but rural America as well.
If the University of Michigan believes diversity is so essential, I propose that they aid in fixing disadvantaged school systems. With an endowment of $8.46 billion, the university should have no problem aiding floundering school budgets.
Yes, much of the endowment is earmarked for specific allocations by donors’ request, but if the university truly believes in diversity, they can accept donations that fund projects that help fix public education.
Nevertheless, they won’t. Money is always an important motivator. Administrators running the university at optimal performance means more than fixing the core disparity minorities face when applying to a university.
It’s disparaging that universities across the country have the ability to fix the widening gap of educational disparities between the rich and the poor, African-Americans and whites. Instead, they perpetuate a lightning rod of controversy to say, “Yes, we create diversity here.” Only it’s at the defeat of equality.
