What is our president up to now? George W. Bush is definitely a man who is viewed by the public at polar opposites. You either love the guy, or you hate him - there's just really no inbetween. The contradictory nature of politics is sometimes astounding. Bush says that he is all for diversity yet he just has a problem with the way the University of Michigan is conducting itself. Picking and choosing has become a premiere tactic used by politicians in order to play the field so to speak. By keeping his conservative supporters happy, Bush states that he is against affirmative action. However, due to his "compassionate" conservatism, he also states that he wants the realms of higher education to be one that is fulfilling and diverse as possible.

To continue this point, one must agree that Bush did get into Yale through affirmative action. Now, we all realize that Bush is not black or hispanic but getting into a school based not on your academic record is an affirmative action policy of some sort. For a student who received fairly average to poor grades, Bush still managed to get into an Ivy League university based on family name, wealth, and attending prep school. These are all still forms of affirmative action that persist today. Someone else without all of the connections as Bush had, probably would have had no chance at getting accepted into Yale with their meager academic record. However, forms of affirmative action that include alumni connection are still highly influential today in the admissions process (most especially at prestigious universities). So the question here is: What is worst? Getting into a school based on racial favoritism without numbers or favoritism limited to your social class and prestige. It's easy when one has a lot of money and the rising costs of college education continues to steadily increase.

Bush was lucky enough to not use his race to be accepted into a admirable university (in order to pursue his future hopes of becoming governor and then president) but instead used his social status and family name instead. Affirmative action is not soley confined to one's skin color. There are obviously examples of awarding more points to someone because of their past history with the institution or their generous contributions that have been given to the school throughout the generations. Bush may not realize it but not everyone has the money to manipulate the system like he did. Not everyone is born into the upper wealthy class, but everyone is born with his or her own skin color.

Questions of affirmative action are relevant not only in the academic world, but also in the career world. Most major Fortune 500 companies stress the importance of having a diverse employee pool. The more diverstiy that can be found within a company, will only bring further success in terms of economic return. With a ecclectic applicant pool, a company is better able to reach out to different consumer groups in order to sell their products or services. With America being such a large nation filled with so many people from different backgrounds, it is important to reach out to all of these potential buyers. Increasingly, many U.S. companies have also began to focus their interests in overseas sales and thus need a well-rounded group of employees that can foster these foreign relationships. By having many different ethnicities within one's company, not only makes business more productive but also makes a company look "better" in the eyes of investors or competition.

DiversityInc comes out with a list of the most diverse companies to work for every year. Recently, Ford Motors Co. was ranked number one followed by Fannie Mae and American Express. In the midst of this report however, Workforce magazine has released a statement stating that they do not believe that there is a direct correlation between a company making more revenue by having a diverse group of employees. It also states that companies spend on average about eight billion dollars a year trying to create these programs in order to recruit more minority applicants with not enough return upon investment. Although DiversityInc and Workforce disagree in terms of what a diverse employee pool will do for a company in terms of the dollar, they both agree that overall having a myriad of races within a company for honest reasons is definitely a good thing that should be more popular.

Whether one's true reason are really for helping employees to benefit from multicultural backgrounds or if it is mainly for economic gain, affirmative action in the workplace will still continue to play out as a professional tribulation with not nearly as much press coverage as university admissions policies. Nonetheless, it is debatable on whether a minority applicant would want to work in an environment that only wants them there for the color of their skin regardless of their intellectual capabilities or qualifications. It all comes down to priorities and what each individual values the most in terms of their role in society. A person using their race only to their advantage can seem unsettling to the large white majority but then again, aren't we all just trying to level the playing field?

It doesn't matter if you're black or white. This is a phrase that we all periodically hear and easily accept as true. However, this is not the case in today's society whether we choose to belive it or not. What is the percentage of one's race that decides which cateogry they fall under? This is important question to pose because there are many applying high school seniors who come from parents of different races. The 2000 census even indicated that over 37.7 million blacks stated they were from combinations of more than one race. The numbers are relatively lower for Latinos but it still raises what the necessary criteria are in order to receive admissions into a university or collect on scholarship money.

Is 50% enough? What about 25%? What percentage is necessary to make a person apart of one qualified group? It is shown through various statistics that the ivy league schools forcefully fight over the black and hispanic students that are at the top of their classes. It is a fierce battle to attract these distinguishable students due to the fact that they have worthy academic backgrounds but more importantly have a connection to a particularly defined race. What this leaves however is a "mixture" of kids who are not of one distinguishable race to be left in the dust - for reasons of non clear-cut racial divisions.

Many universities, in wake of the Supreme Court decision, are aleady looking into other possible alternatives to their affirmative action policies that would maybe help minority enrollment for those who have more than one race in their background. By implementing more minority recruiting efforts in conjunction with looking into an applicant's socio-economic background, the quest for diversity may be more efficient to those who do not seem to fit within one category. It seems like an oxymoron that we presently have an affirmative action programs designed to bring in a more diverse student population yet within these groups of minority applicants there are still divisions within that segment as well. In order to fight an overall division, we must first must fight the dvision within.

As the Supreme Court continues to hear briefs and debates concerning the University of Michigan cases, other schools seem to be taking matters into their own hands without the necessary "approval" of governmental authority. Just this past weekend, Virginia Tech University reinstated its affirmative action program. Although the school was told by the attorney general's office that there were certain aspects of their programs which were unconstitutional, VT went on about it as though they really had no care in the world.

VT's program extends beyond just the admissions process into scholarships and into the hiring of staff. The reason for their sudden outburst in the midst of the Michigan cases is due to the fact that VT had been considering ending such affirmative action processes. It is clear to see that they did this to no avail. There were protests and demonstrations staged (mainly from affirmative action supporters) because of the fact that VT seemed intimidated by the Supreme Court rulings and therefore trying to change their policies during the trial proceedings.

It seemed contradictory to the students and other supporters of affirmative action that despite the state of Virginia have a 20% black population, only 6% of the VT campus was comprised of black students. This disparity caused a lot of ill feeling on behalf of minority students. Thus, VT took a monumental step in spite of the proceedings taking place in Washington D.C.. They decided to take a stand as higher education facility in order to resume affirmative action while it was still possible in the time frame. This summer when the Supreme Court hands down its motion will then be the appropriate time to make the adjustments necessary in order to follow the newly established law. It is comforting to see that institutions and/or people are still taking a stand for issues that may be deemed unconstitutional, and preserving those ideals until the very end of its tenure.

Yesterday marked the first day of hearings in a monumental Supreme Court case that may ultimately decide the fate of whether race has any place in the admissions process of any higher education institution. Although the outcome of this case will prove pertinent to public colleges and universities, it will send a chilling ripple effect across the nation concerning how American thinking and ideology has changed since Brown v. Board of Education in the sixties where racism and segregation was still heavily apart of American society.

This will be the first case of its kind dealing with racism that the United States will experience during this new century. Although it would only mandate its ruling on public institutions, the result of this case is monumental. The reason for this is that it will influence how private colleges view their admissions process and how other government institutions will also in turn try to amend their policies. By expanding from the public realm into the private realm, these Michigan cases will prove to be a historic precedent to how racial relations will continue to be viewed in the future.

The outcome of this case is not going to be a simple one or one that either side of the issue will walk away lightly from. The 9 member court is roughly split in terms of liberals and conservatives. A key swing vote belongs to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who may very well control the final outcome of this case. Many analysts have long pointed to the fact that this will be another 5-4 decision of the Court and that there will be tremendous uproar concerning which way the case is settled. It took a very long time in the past to implement such programs such as desegregation and many see this also as an issue that would create resistance and thus alternative admissions policies that would try to undermine the national ruling.

The stage is set and so is the tension outside of the court room. Some 5,000 to 7,000 protesters marched outside voicing their pro-affirmative action stance. Chants such as ''they say Jim Crow, we say hell no'' are being yelled while political figures such as the Reverend Jesse Jackson lend their public figure presence to the cause. Affirmative action is a highly crucial and debatable topic in America right now just as it was some forty or fifty years ago. As we are fighting a war in Iraq abroad right now, we are also fighting our own division here at home.

Everything costs money. Everything costs even more money in the legal arena. The two cases which will be heard starting April 1st by the Supreme Court concerning the University of Michigan cases have already escalated to over nine million dollars. The case hasn’t even started yet and money is already being spent left and right to prepare for this legal debauchery. A question to consider is: how much is enough? For these two particular cases, national precedence is on the line. Many believe that it is imperative to commit the most qualified attorneys to the cause as well as have a trustworthy team of researchers. Going to court is expensive but knowing where Michigan is receiving such fonding is another question.

At the moment, U - M's expenses are being paid by an insurance company that takes care of U - M's liabilities in legal affairs. However, there is some debate surrounding scholarship gifts that Michigan is entitled to use that is specifically given to the university as a means for “diversifying student enrollment.” This causes some debate within the school’s community but then again it is this specific issue of diversification that we are all trying to assess the validity of anyway.

There is always business involved with any case. Concerning the issue of affirmative action, the economics of this decision could be monumental to many companies concerning employment (especially those on the Fortune 500). Recognizable companies make it a point to show their diverse employees to put them in good light with the public and to create a learning environment between co-workers. If a decision is made banning affirmative action, minority enrollment will decline at U - M including other schools which will in turn cause the applicant job pool for minorities to decline as well. Thus, companies will not be able to hire everyone that they deem necessary for their success. Consider it this way: a more diverse employee field will be able to more thoroughly reach minority market segments that will in turn increase sales or enhance profitability.

It is no joke that money makes the world go round. It is interesting to note these economic implications of a case surrounding education. Then again, education is the pathway to becoming successful in one’s career if monetary gain is considered important. Although this is an individual choice, the choice of affirmative action rests in a group of nine judges who will decide the fate of admission standards across the nation.

Just how effective is the judicial branch of the United States government? Is the system established fairly enough that 9 appointed officers of a court are allowed to hold the fate of America’s most controversial issues not elaborated in the constitution? Unlike lower courts, the Supreme Court rigidly sticks to its half-hour, one-lawyer per side allotment. This makes the University of Michigan cases rather complex since many students both in and outside of the system are arguing for their right to voice their opinion on the matter. So the court is unlikely to add extra minutes, although it should truly hear these students' persuasive reasoning and take it into great consideration. If the university doesn't have time to make a strong case, and the students get even less, neither might be persuasive enough to elaborate their case. Both need the court to uphold affirmative action. Thus, without the students being able to voice their opinion, it is necessary that the university makes a strong case that is all encompassing of how they feel on this matter.

Voicing an opinion is probably the most productive way to have a say on issues that the public really has little participation level on. The fact that individual people have begun to form into groups in order to have a stronger say-so in public matters has significantly assisted Michigan’s case for affirmative action. Not only have briefs helped their side of the case, but the amount of collaborative support from organizations, such as the NAACP, or even an entire state system. The state of Colorado has recently vocalized their state’s backing behind the Michigan cases. The state of Colorado uses a similar system of points that doesn’t strictly follow quotas but have tweaked the system in such a way to diversify the classroom. The US military system has also voiced its support for affirmative action since it has helped them tremendously in recruitment of men for the armed services.

With the three branches of our nation’s government constantly battling each other through a system of checks and balances, it is safe to know that the people of this country still have some sort of say in the policies that are brought forward to be judged. We can not and should not allow for power to fall so directly into one branch and then into another as if to create a monarchical system of sorts. Although the Supreme Court has a lasting say on affirmative action, it is important to remember that we as citizens have a tremendous impact on what the outcome is because our vote during the presidential election directly effects his or her appointment to the Court.

The legislative branch of the US government has always been known for their partisan ways in looking at the way certain legislation gets passed while others get knocked down. A group of 12 key democratic senators have recently stepped forward to defend their position on affirmative action concerning the University of Michigan cases. As a group, they sent a legal brief to the Supreme Court addressing their support and stance on the matter. This was one of the final briefs which were filed, and the ratio is 3 to 1 in favor of Michigan. The Bush administration has also filed a brief of their own opposing the university’s process saying that race should not be a determinant factor concerning entry into higher education. A spokesperson for the 12 senators renounced Bush and his presidential authority by saying that it “is undermining one of the most important tools for promoting equal opportunity.”

Although the Democratic Party is usually one that is known to support affirmative action policies, there are a few key Democrats who are shying away from the issue for their own political agendas. Recently, Senator Joseph Lieberman announced that he would be running in the next presidential election. Although he has always gone in favor of those 12 senators’ policies, he refused to sign the brief. While he was a vice-presidential candidate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, he was known as a staunch supporter of such programs – now this isn’t so the case. It is obvious that he, like any other politician, has election or re-election always in mind. It is possible that he is waiting for a decision to actually be made and survey the American public’s response before signing his name to anything. Lieberman has always been known by his fellow senators as one who is very indecisive on such matters as affirmative action and social security. He just doesn’t know where to stand.

Thus, it is an arduous task to truly get an unbiased opinion of how people in Washington actually view affirmative action or any type of policy for that matter. There are a lot of stakes involved for any politician who vocally comes out on controversial issues that a lot of Americans feel so inherently strong about. Although Bush has come forward to show his loyal resistance to any affirmative action, there have been many people in the legislature (both House and Senate) that denounce Bush’s position as well. Although it is up to the Supreme Court to make the law of the nation, it is important to realize that in a democratic nation that we are apart of, the level of participation among the other branches as well as the public can sometimes become a tipping point for such matters – now whether it is effective or not is another question in and of itself.

The political intrigue with affirmative action may have its partisan agendas as they usually do. President Bush was recently found vocalizing his support for diversity in higher education through other devised plans such as his own "affirmative access" plan which was implemented in Texas while he was governor. These so-called “percent plans” have been implemented in states which were affected by the Hopwood ruling – major state universities were banned from using affirmative action programs due to the 5th Circuit Court ruling. Bush and supporting Republicans believe that percent plans do and will create more diversity in the classroom without highly favoring minorities in the classroom.

With this stance on creating affirmative access programs, the Democratic Party has blatantly attacked Bush and his plan saying that it is not conducive to creating such diverse environments. Other civil rights groups have also shown their disdain towards Bush and his supporters with this plan as well. However, Harvard University has done significant research and study into these percent plans and “has found that simply designating a proportion of each high school class entitled to public university admission results in diverse college campuses.” Thus, according to these results race neutral plans can enhance minority enrollment into public universities without deliberately and consciously choosing a student based on the color of their skin. The Michigan case could have major implications for Bush and his Republican counterparts running in the next election. His conservative supporters are opposed to race-based preferences and affirmative action policies, but the Republican Party is trying to get minority voters to vote their way which may cause a slight conflict within our party system.

One would think that an issue involving school admittance wouldn’t become a far fetching controversy that would place its stamp on all of the governmental branches. As we wait for a national precedent to be established by the Supreme Court, it is imperative to take account for the national implications that affect such many assorted entities – a child’s educational future, where power lies in the various political parties and racial relations in general.

In the wake of the pending court decision concerning the University of Michigan’s admissions policy, many other universities are starting to review their own policies to circumvent any possible issues that may be prohibited. The decision comes at a time where the debate on how the Supreme Court will rule in two cases that challenge the race-conscious admission policies. Three white students allege that the undergraduate and law school admission policies deny white applicants the equal protection that is guaranteed by the Constitution. Princeton University took a big step in ending a minority program that is offered every summer because of concerns that it may be linked to affirmative action lawsuits. This particular program began in 1985, started by the Ford Foundation, in order to help underprivileged minority students get a glimpse into the world of higher education. Five years ago however, the Ford Foundation discontinued its support of the programs due to anxiety about legal predicaments.

This decision was made about a week ago when administrators of the Woodrow Wilson School Junior Summer Institute determined that the program’s race-based admissions policy could not stand up in court. The reason for this anxiety is due to the fact that the program, which is now funded by the university itself, is race exclusive in its admissions policy because it specifically targets black and Hispanic undergraduates. Vice president of Communications at Princeton, Robert Durkee, eloquently stated that "if you are committed to diversity, what you don't want to do is to defend a program that would put [diversity] at risk.” Ultimately, it is more important to help the overall pursuit for diversity for universities in general than to risk their own program that probably would not withstand the ruling of the Court. As some universities await the Court’s ruling on the matter, which would establish national precedent, others have obviously begun the process of ending race-specific programs.

Various state university systems have implemented alternative options concerning their desire to diversify the classrooms throughout the state system. Such cases as Hopwood and Bakke have placed significant restraints against affirmative actions that public universities must now create a system of admissions that follows judicial rule but also one that creates a student body population conducive to learning. Their ultimate goal is to have interaction between the cultures to broaden the minds of their students in a higher education environment. Universities are ultimately trying to “diversify” their enrollment for the supposed better good of their academic experience.

Nonetheless, programs such as the “Top 10 Percent” Law (House Bill 588) that have been implemented at various Texas universities are suddenly being questioned for their productivity. The University of Texas at Austin has been at the center spotlight amidst the controversy. Under their admissions guideline, the law “guarantees that Texas high school graduates who rank in the top 10 percent of their senior class to be admitted to any state institution of higher learning.” This program was enacted when former governor of Texas, George W. Bush, opted for an “affirmative access” procedure that would give automatic admissions to a state university of a student’s choice no matter what their academic history or test scores happened to be. The reasoning behind a plan such as this is to encourage enrollment of Blacks and Hispanics into a university system by allowing guaranteed admission. Geographically speaking, there are many high schools in the state of Texas that are predominantly attended by minorities. However, by establishing this statewide consensus schools such as UT are able to hypothetically admit low income minority students whose academic records wouldn’t be as comparable to that of Caucasian students in the application process.

As with any situation, there are always unintended consequences of implementing such an encompassing program that doesn’t distinguish a student on a multitude of factors but basically only by their class rank. A problem such as this can raise concerns on the quality of students that are being attracted. Every school district and every high school teaches at a different level in comparison to the other. Are the students being admitted academically prepared to handle a university level education? Are they able to compete with their entering freshman class? These are a few issues that must be addressed. One begins to wonder whether or not “affirmative access” is a good solution to a growing dilemma and whether or not the admissions program is actually fulfilling its promise – to give more equal opportunity.

On January 21, 2003 the nation's highest court, the Supreme Court, agreed to hear a case on the University of Michigan’s admissions criteria. Arguments will begin on April 1st of this year. The Court will be rendering in Grutter v. Bollinger, an affirmative action case against the University of Michigan Law School; and Gratz v. Bollinger, an affirmative action case regarding undergraduate admissions at the University of Michigan. There hasn’t been a case of this magnitude concerning race based admittance standards since Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School. Hopwood rejected the legitimacy of diversity as a goal, asserting that "educational diversity is not recognized as a compelling state interest." Thus, the case overturned Regents of the University of California v. Bakke making not only racial quotas to be unconstitutional but also the suggestion to make a more diverse academic environment was not recognized by the law either. At the end of Hopwood, the future of affirmative action looked rather grim and overcoming these sets of judicial obstacles would take precision around the enacted conditions.

Such inherent disposition towards affirmative action has been seen throughout the course of the latter 20th century. Why all of a sudden is affirmative action being revisited again in the Court? As it stands now, you cannot use affirmative action in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi; but you can use it in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The reason for this mishap of sorts is due to the fact that Hopwood was decided under the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which only covers those states mentioned above. In the upcoming litigation, the Supreme Court will review the University of Michigan cases in order to finally set a national precedent on affirmative action. As of late, there has been a lack of unanimity throughout the nation concerning admissions standards in higher education. Through the Court’s judicial power, they hope to determine a “just” decision on the matter. A look into various programs enacted after the previous Court rulings will be examined in the upcoming posts.

Race and its position in American society is a controversial issue that hasn’t faded much out of the spotlight. The United States has historically been at the center of race driven prejudice in regards to slavery, segregation, and internments to name a few. With such an extensive chronicle of injustice inflicted upon various groups of minorities, the United States has found it necessary to make reparations on behalf of its previous generations of mistakes. A few of the earliest forms of action taken by the government included the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246, and the Philadelphia Order. After the official end of discrimination concerning race, color, religion and national origin, a wave of judicial, political, and societal concern for affirmative action arose as a divisive issue in American society.

Affirmative action is a broad term that is susceptible to various interpretations. The definition that will be used for the purposes of this discussion will be the implementation of government programs in order “to overcome the effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to members of specific groups, such as minorities and women.” By “leveling the playing field,” many believe that minorities will gain educational as well as career oriented opportunities that are generally limited to white access. The discussion here will emphasize affirmative action in the realm of higher education. In our most prestigious universities across the United States, certain methods of affirmative action are or have been in place in order to heighten minority enrollment. The question of whether or not this is an acceptable standard will be analyzed through pertinent current event issues as well as statistical data and previous landmark decisions.