The University of California is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them to once again use race as one qualifying standard to decide who gets admitted to the school and who doesn't. Sixteen years ago, California voters banned affirmative action in university admissions. The UC President, Mark Yudof, and supporters, felt that "race provides a more complete understanding of the applicants record and experiences." They want race to be "considered among many factors, including academic record, personal essays, leadership potential, extracurricular activities, and honors and awards" when selecting students for acceptance into the UC university system, especially at the University of California at Berkeley and at the University of California at Los Angeles. UC administrators stated that restricting admission standards to race-neutral policies leads to a substantial decline in the proportion of entering students who are African American, American Indian and Latino." On its face, that is a quota system, which the school administrators deny is a goal. Their feeling was that a race-neutral policy threatened their ability to train a "diverse set of leaders.” I guess the school's administration feels that minorities are entitled and they seem to infer that students who don't qualify without the race factor will make good leaders. The Obama administration also voiced support for a race-related criteria for applicants for admission. Is this timely maneuver hoping to achieve a "rainbow" student body while making a play for votes?
Doesn't it seem obvious to any reasonable person, that a black student who is not qualified on his own merits, who gains admission to a university, while a white student who is qualified is rejected, leaves a bad taste in the mouth and reeks of partisan,political, public relations, or worse. And wouldn't this be especially true in a situation where there was a time when there was only one student vacancy available. Also, if race is used as a factor, why not use religion, gender, color, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that might aid in developing "good leaders?" That scenario would be just as prejudicial as not allowing qualified black students to enroll just because they are black. Maybe that's one of the reasons affirmative action lost when it was on the ballot.
Supporters of race-related admission policies use words like "diverse, best interest, fulfillment, contextual factors, impermissible racial balancing" and such. Hasn't the "race card" worn out its meaning by now? Is it possible that the United States is slowly moving in the direction of being a country where being white may be a liability? And consider the possibility that there might be some who would rejoice on the day that happens.
Would it make sense if police and fire departments, and hospitals, hire African Americans, American Indians, Latinos, Asians, or any other minority, as policemen, firemen, nurses and doctors, who are not qualified, in lieu of white candidates who are qualified? Are there those who would redefine "qualified" simply by including "race" alongside the list of inherent skills needed for successful careers in these fields? Is it getting close to the time when getting an education is no more essential to getting admitted into universities than being a certain race or color? Will dedication and hard work be replaced by race as a criteria for college admission, or even for ground floor opportunities in other areas besides college admission.
A little while back, the National Organization for Women, or NOW, decided to try to force the Master's golf tournament to accept women into the tournament. All the men golfers who play have to qualify in that prestigious match by winning a certain number of tournaments or a certain amount of money, as required by the Tournament officials. NOW wanted women to play just because the tournament was for men only, just because they were women, and "By God" they want "equal rights." Women were denied the right to play, so NOW campaigned to influence some sponsors, who paid for the event, to withdraw their support. The match went on without a hitch. As Sigmund Freud once asked. "What do some women really want?" At The Master's, should a woman who has not qualified, as the men must, be allowed to take the place of a man who has qualified, just because she is a woman? At the University of California, should a minority student, who may not meet the qualifications, be legally allowed to take the place of a white student who does qualify, by using their non-white race as a qualifying criteria? The fact that questions like that exist make you pause and wonder about where America is heading. I have heard it said that, to paraphrase, America must offer opportunity, but cannot nor should it guarantee outcomes.