Conservative Voice Diversity Without Compromise

Author: David Coriell

No one would dispute the claim that diversity at Middlebury enhances our educational experience. It's easy to believe we are sheltered up here in the mountains, but the diverse make-up of our student body helps us to open our eyes to a larger world of differing customs, traditions and beliefs. Every student adds to the diversity of our campus in his or her own way. It is certainly the goal of our college to bring students of different views and backgrounds together to add to the richness of student life. But at what cost do we seek this diversity?

This summer two Supreme Court cases brought this question to national attention. Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger both dealt with admissions policies at the University of Michigan. The two cases were, and are, part of the ongoing debate over affirmative action. In Gratz v. Bollinger the Supreme Court ruled that an admissions policy at the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions office, which gives points to applicants based solely on the race, is unconstitutional. Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, in the opinion of the court, that the "automatic distribution of 20 points has the effect of making 'the factor of race ... decisive.'"

In the other case, Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the admission policy at the University of Michigan Law School. In the view of the court, this policy did not make race a decisive factor in admissions.

The Law School, in the eyes of the majority in the court, did not require a set number of minority students. It only hoped to achieve diversity. In these two rulings, along with the precedent setting, 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court supported institutions' right to diversity. However, when seeking diversity, colleges and universities cannot discriminate against non-minorities by prohibiting them from competing fairly against minorities. This violates the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

When two equally qualified applicants are considered for admission, it may be in the College's best interest to select the minority for the sake of diversity. But when admission policies are lowered for one group, in hopes it will improve diversity, it undermines the legitimacy of the institution. In his dissent in the Grutter case, Justice Clarence Thomas, the only African-American on the Supreme Court, worried that minority preference "unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination (affirmative action)." He also believed these preferences lead to more complacency among minority applicants if they do not feel they have to live up to the same standards of other applicants. It is, therefore, in no one's interest to lower admission standards for the sake of diversity.

It is true that some minorities do not compete on an equal field due to past discrimination. Steps must be taken to alleviate these past ills. But, as Justice Thomas argues, if these steps to counteract past injustice go too far, such as admitting unqualified minorities, not only will qualified non-minorities suffer, but minorities will also be done an injustice. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in writing the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, said, "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." Hopefully we shall reach this goal in the next 25 years.

I am confident that at Middlebury students are admitted only if the Admissions office believes they can succeed here. I believe the policies of this school do lend to a diverse student body without compromising educational standards. Diversity is achieved many ways, and it is not limited to race. Athletes and artists, dancers and musicians, among many others, bring with them different talents, which benefit the community as a whole.

As Middlebury students, we come from all 50 states and 70 different countries. We practice different religions and hold different political beliefs. All of this creates an educational environment that promotes not only learning, but living as well. Admissions standards do not have to be lowered, as was the case in Gratz v. Bollinger, to foster diversity.