Affirmative action must survive: in higher education, I say the end certainly does justify the means. (Viewpoint).

In response to higher education admissions policies being placed in the national spotlight for possible litigation, California, Texas, and Florida initiated plans allowing a percentage of the top students in each high school admission to state universities. California's plan is 4 percent, the Texas plan is 10 percent, and Florida's plan is 20 percent. The primary complaint against any "X Percent" plan is that it may penalize students at the more demanding secondary schools where those not making the top percent are still better prepared for college than students in the top "X Percent" at other high schools. Also, admitting less-qualified students into the most selective institutions may end up leaving them struggling for survival in classes more difficult than they are equipped to handle. Finally, high school students with a promise of guaranteed admission might be more inclined to stay away from the most rigorous classes or more demanding high schools for fear of jeopardizing their class rank. Clearly, "X Percent" systems are not the perfect solution to balancing minority enrollments in higher education; some scholars fear they may end up making great academic public institutions less competitive.

Yet what makes the two University of Michigan cases so interesting to this writer is the fact that the same year Barbara Grutter was denied admission, 23 other white applicants were admitted to the law school despite lower grade-point averages and test scores. Similarly, the year Jennifer Gratz was rejected, 42 whites or Asians (whom the university refers to as "non-underrepresented minorities") were admitted with lower grades and test score results. Although the university uses a "selection index" of up to 150 points based primarily on academic factors, 20 points may be granted for one of the following: membership in an underrepresented minority group, socioeconomic disadvantage, athletic ability, or graduation from a predominantly minority high school. The university maintains that despite outreach and recruitment efforts, the percentage of minority applicants at the top range of grades and test scores would fall below 3 percent with a "race-blind lottery." Last year, 6.7 percent of the law school students were black and 4.4 percent were Hispanic.

A key to the Michigan defense has been testimony by Patricia Gurin, professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, regarding research suggesting that college students (both minority and non-minority) learn better when the learning takes place in a setting where they are confronted by others different from themselves. Professor Gurin has found that students who experience the most racial and ethnic diversity in classroom settings and informal interactions with peers, show the greatest engagement in active thinking processes, growth in intellectual engagement and motivation, and growth in intellectual and academic skills. Further, she has stated: "When educated in a diverse environment, students are better able to understand and consider multiple perspectives, deal with conflicts which different perspectives sometimes create, and appreciate common values and integrative forces that harness differences in pursuit of the common good."

Gurin's testimony appears consistent with conclusions presented by Alexander W. Astin in What Matters in College? (Jossey-Bass, 1993): (1) "Cognitive and affective outcomes are affected by institutional diversity policies and activities" and (2) "Enhancing institutional emphasis on diversity may increase retention rates." Further, data from the latest "National Survey of Student Engagement" (NSSE Institute, 2002) showed that students who experience diversity report high levels of engagement, more progress in personal and educational growth, more involvement in active and collaborative learning, and more satisfaction with their college experience. George Kuh, a professor of higher education at Indiana University at Bloomington, has stated, "The bottom line is that diversity is good. It's good for all kinds of reasons, not just being exposed to different people."

A key point to consider when discussing affirmative action in higher education is the degree to which a white student's chances of being admitted to a selective institution are hurt by using a race-conscious system. In their book, The Shape of the River: long-term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (Princeton University Press, 1998), William Bowen and Derek Bok determined that even if all selective universities used a race-blind admissions systems, the probability of a white student being admitted would go only from 25 percent to 26.2 percent.

Despite encouraging data collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and reported by Bowen and Bok, many of us in higher education realize that we have a long road to travel when it comes to respectful race relations and opportunities for positive social change. [In that same report, Bowen and Bok state that] advocates of race-sensitive admissions policies at selective colleges and universities feel that by 2030, nearly 40 percent of all Americans will be members of minority groups. It is critical that all minorities are given the chance to become well-educated professionals so that their interests are represented and they may participate in the democratic process. Hilary Hurd Anyaso, editor of the publication Black Issues in Higher Education, reminds us that this country "still needs the Thurgood Marshalls of the world." Further, that "law schools, not only affiliated with historically black colleges and universities, must train and produce lawyers of color who will stay connected to the minority community and be active in legal issues that affect minorities." ("Continuing the Legacy, but Looking Ahead to the Future," April 12, 2001.)

In this writer's mind, there is no question that higher education should continue using affirmative action as a factor for admissions. There is more than enough evidence to support the benefits of diversity on campus in our ever-increasingly diverse society. We must continue to honor the position of the American Council on Education (Making the Case for Affirmative Action in Higher Education, 2001): "To impose new prohibitions against affirmative action in admissions decisions would be devastating to the effort to achieve and maintain diversity within our student bodies and, ironically, would be a serious intrusion into institutional autonomy at a time when many in government and academe are demanding precisely the opposite."

Colleges and universities have succeeded in this country because they have been able to set their own agendas and standards. They also have been successful in producing contributors to the economic, political, and social well-being of society. In a country that values freedom of choice, colleges and universities should retain their freedom to choose. Today's leaders in higher education must be visionaries with a goal of providing the best possible learning environment, both in and out of the classroom, for tomorrow's student body. The use of affirmative action helps everyone achieve that goal. By (this summer), the Supreme Court should be able to provide guidance regarding how diversity can be legally pursued within the scope of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. [Editor's note: The author of this column has fully referenced his facts and citations. You may request his notations from us at [e-mail].]

Jerry Corcoran is Interim VP for Business Services & Finance/ Treasurer, Illinois Valley Community College, Oglesby, IL.