Affirmative Action at the Michigan Law School

Ultimately I'm going to have to say that I agree with affirmative action. I feel that this article did an good job at pointing out why it is so important. The most important issue in my opinion is the diversity that it provides. Diversity is important! Without diversity and without interaction with people who are different then you, hate is fostered. I mean if you don't interact with someone who is different, all you have to base your judgments of that group are stereotypes that you've heard or seen in media. It's so much easier to be hateful towards someone that you don't understand. If you experience diversity and get to know someone of a diverse group, you can often times see that people who are different are more than just that stereotype, that they are people too, and that you have similarities. This is why getting to know people who are different than you is so important. Not only that but diversity can challenge your beliefs and make you think outside the box. It's beneficial in so many ways.

This is why it really bugs me when people say that they are not in support of affirmative action because someone who is "less qualified" may be picked over someone who is "more qualified." I think that this is a shallow argument based solely on a traditional view of what qualified means. Qualified for a job does not necessarily that the candidate has to have certain qualities. It depends on how much you value diversity and if the candidate would bring diversity to the position, then maybe it is the traditionally less qualified candidate that is really more qualified. The question that Affirmative action is really asking is how much we should value diversity.

Specifically addressing the Law School case study article, I really couldn't stand some of the comments in Solicitor General Olson's brief and his suggesting that race neutral alternatives would be better. To me "race neutral alternatives' just try and ignore the problem of race being so related to class! On page 400 i really couldn't stand it when he said "nothing in the constitution requires public universities and govts to close their eyes to this reality or to tolerate artificial obsticles to educational opportunity." These artificial obsticles are not artificial! they are real!

One other thing that I really wanted to address was the last paragraph of the comments section. I think that on the question of when to take race into account for social public policy, that 4. that it is defensible depending on the circumstances is where I stand. That is as long as there are still clear class differences related to race, that the system works against certain race (did you know that studies have shown that it takes three or four generations on average for a person to move up a class) and that we find diversity as beneficial.

One problem I do see with AA is that racism needs to be addressed on more than this level. I think that diversity should be something that we address at younger ages too and continue to talk about and value through all phases in our lives.