Becca Self, Staff Writer
Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a society in which children are judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Is this ideal undermined or strengthened by the practice of affirmative action?
Several dozen students, faculty members, and administrators gathered for a forum sponsored by the Multicultural Student Programs and Services on November 7 to learn about the Supreme Court Case Fisher v. University of Texas. Abigail Fisher’s lawsuit against the University of Texas was heard on October 10. A decision is not expected until June 2013, but the case is creating significant debate over the value of affirmative action policies at universities throughout the country. Visiting Assistant Professor Veronica Root provided a brief background of the legal precedent for the Fisher v. UT case, and Donald Bishop, Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Enrollment, explained Notre Dame’s admission policies in light of the affirmative action debate.
The 1978 Supreme Court ruled that fixed quotas of minority students are unconstitutional, but established the principle that a university may practice affirmative action if it meets the following three criteria: First, there must be a compelling government interest for the cause, which is diversity in the case of affirmative action; second, the policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve its goals; and third, the policy must use the least restrictive means available.
Fisher sued the University of Texas (UT) for not adhering to a 1978 Supreme Court ruling regarding the affirmative action policy of the University of California-Davis. Many people believe that Fisher is suing UT for discriminating against her on the basis of her Caucasian ethnicity, but that is not the case. Fisher instead contested the way in which UT evaluates applications, believing that their policies violate the second criterion laid out in the 1978 Supreme Court ruling. Fisher argues that UT’s student evaluations are not “narrowly tailored” to their goal of increasing diversity, and therefore are unconstitutional.
Even though UT established a program in 1996 by which the school guarantees acceptance to the top 10 percent of every high school graduating class in Texas, the school’s current level of of diversity has not matched its numbers from prior to the 2000 Supreme Court decision Hopwood v. Texas, which forced UT to eliminate race as a factor in the admissions process.
Diversity, however, is a challenging concept to pin down, especially when one is thinking of increasing it: for example, how would one define “Hispanic?” The idea of affirmative action is to provide equal opportunity to members of minority groups that have been treated unfairly in the past. Does the descendant of a wealthy Spaniard fall within the Hispanic spectrum? Individuals vary widely on what they believe constitutes minority status, and this is one reason that affirmative action is an “emotionally charged” topic in America today.
Toward the end of the forum, an audience member asked Root, “How do we start to erase the feeling that a person of color’s gain is a white person’s loss?” This question gets at the heart of the emotional and political drama surrounding the Fisher case. Root, an African American woman, shared how she responds to the rejected white students who claim that minorities “took their spots” at selective universities: “I didn’t take your spot, because I’m not you. They want different people. It wasn’t your spot to have.”
Bishop supported Root’s claim that universities are seeking out diversity in their applicants, especially when “diversity” refers to more than race. According to Bishop, Notre Dame is “certainly moving forward” in its goal to “develop leaders for all sorts of communities” and “influence fairness in the world.” Whatever the result of the Fisher case, Bishop is confident that Notre Dame’s policy will not be altered significantly because the University has a “robust system” of evaluating applications that incorporates affirmative action into the greater goal of increasing diversity in all its forms. He is grateful that the “government has not dictated how private universities recruit and prioritize” during the admissions process, because Notre Dame’s discretion in this process is integral to the admission team’s ability to build the community of scholars that feeds into one of the most active, involved alumni networks in the world.
Bishop also refuted the idea that standardized tests are the best way to prove a student’s qualifications to a university: “The assumption that SAT scores define talent is nonsense,” he said. He gave a striking example of one National Merit Scholar named Ted Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, who was “not really good with people.” Clearly standardized tests are not the most reliable indicators of an individual’s preparedness for higher education.
Bishop challenged current Notre Dame students to cultivate their work ethic and strive to balance their gifts with the needs of their communities:
“You have high potential. Are you using it?”
Becca Self is an English major in the First Year of Studies. She is so proud of her recently acquired football knowledge that she is willing to discuss sports with anyone, anytime. Contact her at rself@nd.edu.
Leave a Reply