EDITORIAL: Debating affirmative action

Affirmative action exists to benefit minorities, and for no other reason. But as a byproduct of the practice, the educational experiences for the majority of its benefactors are enriched including colleges that can boast about their diverse student bodies. And the democratic ideal of education for all may even be fulfilled.

But are minorities being hurt by a system designed to help them?

The term "minority" has to be defined in terms of affirmative action. University admissions offices should consider many kinds of minority status, including the socio-economic minority. However, in the discussion about affirmative action, "it's about race," said Dean of Students Kenneth Elmore, advocating in favor of affirmative action at last night's Great Debate. Specifically, it is about the black race in America, the same race that was enslaved for hundreds of years, the same race that was systematically discriminated against in the United States until less than 50 years ago and is still feeling the effects today. It is about minorities who are statistically failing in the public school system, and not the minority groups who are excelling within it.

Richard Sander, arguing the negative, cited statistics that show black students who received preferential treatment fail at elite colleges at a much higher rate than other races, and its Affirmative action that gives these unprepared students entrance to such schools. Sander argued these black students should have decided to attend schools where they will have a better chance of success and high grades. Minority students should not attend the best schools they can get into because this entrance is race-based, Sander said. A college's emphasis on race in admissions, and then students' subsequent failure at that college, does a disservice to those students. It may even make the students think that the color of their skin is all that matters to the college. This is what the statistics tell us. But the statistics paint a dehumanized picture.

Affirmative action's success can possibly be seen in Elmore's story. He guessed that somewhere along his educational path, his race gave him an advantage. It got him in the door to a place where he could succeed. Affirmative action may benefit individual minorities, or it may devalue the minority population when poorly applied. Black students who are admitted to top-tier schools may face a higher rate of failure there. But how can they succeed if they cannot get a foot in the door?

Ideally, minority students should get a foot in the door based on their grades and merit alone. Ideally, K-12 schools should be up to par in inner-city and rural environments. Ideally, the same education should be available to white, black, rural, poor, Asian, Jewish, American Indian, Hispanic and students from all backgrounds. But until money does not buy the best education at preparatory schools, or until the government finds a way to fund schools at the highest caliber, the secondary-school base from which students apply to college will never be equal. The public-education system fails minorities at the highest rate.

For those students who are admitted to an elite university on the basis of race and not merit, a mechanism must be put in place to acclimate them to the new, elite surrounding. Private higher education institutions cannot, and should not, be responsible for perfecting the socio-economic state of the country. They cannot improve K-12 schools everywhere. Perhaps, like Boston College, Boston University, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, they cannot provide a perfect solution for their own regions' failing inner-city schools. Public and private higher-education institutions cannot be expected to drain their resources to solve a problem outside their direct realm of control.

But where colleges can do something to improve educational prospects for promising minority students, they must. Until colleges can abolish all admissions preferences, such as those concerning legacies, athletic preference, state or national origin and wealth, there will be affirmative action. Affirmative action, if only slightly, if only imperfectly, balances the injustice of higher education admission.

Affirmative action must be applied intelligently, offering opportunities to students who have some promising credentials, even if their SAT scores are only average. Intelligent affirmative action requires admissions counselors to carefully look over applications, check for grades, read through essays and do a whole lot more than looking at the checked box next to a racial designation. Students who are allowed entrance to elite institutions must not be allowed to fall through the cracks. They should expect no preferential treatment beyond admission, but ought to be carefully advised and counseled on their academic plans in an environment that has been statistically proven to be high risk.

Affirmative action may be, as Stephan Thernstrom said arguing against the program, "a cheap solution." But it is a solution, for now. It is not the ultimate solution, nor a reason to settle the debate once and for all. But, so far as affirmative action can and does benefit minorities in the present educational system, it must be allowed to do so.