Seventy-four years after Martin Luther King Jr.’s birth,
and 35 years after his death, millions accept his wife’s
assertion that he was “America’s greatest champion of
racial justice and equality.”
King’s passionate speeches and powerful displays of
non-violent civil disobedience galvanized the civil rights
movement, paved the way for the end of segregation in the United
States, and expanded rights for all minorities.
But as the holiday in King’s honor approaches, emotions
flare over the affirmative action issue, and parties both for and
against the use of race as a factor in college admissions invoke
King’s famous dream of equality to justify their
positions.
The debate, centered on the two white students who claim they
were rejected by the University of Michigan in favor of
less-qualified minority students, has caused many to question
whether King’s definition of equality would include giving
boosts to minority applicants in admissions or hiring.
In the search for King’s vision of equal opportunity, many
have latched onto affirmative action ““ in the words of Leon
Botstein, president of Bard College ““ “an ideology that
celebrates diversity for its own sake.”
In a Jan. 14 submission to the New York Times, Botstein said
there is an error in this pattern of thinking, adding that the true
purpose of race-conscious admission standards is to protect
applicants from social prejudices that may have warped a
university’s ability to be objective.
The affirmative action controversy at the University of Michigan
has highlighted and forced students to question the already blurry
line between true equality and equal opportunity.
“It would be ridiculous for anyone to say that King would
be against (affirmative action),” said Payam Parvinchiha, a
fourth-year marine biology and international development studies
student.
“It is just trying to lessen the effects of slavery on the
African American population by enhancing equality through
education,” she said.
Those who oppose affirmative action argue it does not improve
education at all, but instead merely artificially increases ethnic
diversity so a university can claim to be egalitarian.
Some in opposition to boosts for minority applicants reiterate
what were perhaps King’s most famous words, his dream that
people “be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the
content of their character.”
Peggy Shariari, a third-year philosophy student said, in her
eyes, King’s philosophy is in direct opposition to
affirmative action because giving minorities advantages based on
the color of their skin indicates a non-uniform standard.
This alleged contradiction is one of the chief arguments in the
suit against the University of Michigan.
The University of Michigan formerly used an admissions system
that gave 20 preference points on a 150 point scale to applicants
from “underrepresented” minority groups.
The school gave 12 points to applicants who scored 1600 on their
SATs.
Supporters of affirmative action argue that SAT scores are
deceptive as an objective measurement, and cite statistics that
link SAT scores most strongly with family income.
President Bush, who has called King a hero, drew criticism from
minority leaders Wednesday when he called the University of
Michigan’s affirmative action policies “unfair and
impossible to square with the Constitution.”
As alternatives to race-based admissions, Bush suggested race-
blind programs, such as automatic admission to state schools for
the top 10 percent of high school graduates.
Congresswoman Diane E. Watson, D-Los Angeles, called
Bush’s opposition to affirmative action an attack on
diversity.
“It is particularly ironic and saddening that the
president chose to make his announcement on the birthday of Martin
Luther King,” Watson said in a statement.
Supporters of affirmative action note that race-blind programs
have admitted more minorities, but not enough to keep pace with
national demographic trends.
Both sides of the affirmative action debate claim to be seeking
equality.
The difficulty in determining whether using race as a factor for
admission is fair makes many students ambivalent.
Some, like John Nam, a third-year political science student, see
equality in the middle of the road.
“I think that Martin Luther King would have been for
affirmative action, but only in moderation,” Nam said.
“Some people think that affirmative action keeps minorities
from reaching their full potential, but we could never know for
sure.”