• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

In 1954, the United States Supreme Court made a historical decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. Last week, the Court helped preserve that ruling’s legacy.

The High Court’s unanimous Brown decision required integration of public schools and declared that separate schools for black and white children were inherently unequal. Brown sought to ensure individuals were not kept from success because they belonged to a certain race.

Brown banned racist policies, but nearly 50 years later the United States’ education systems still suffer from de facto segregation – segregation that forestalls the country from achieving true equality and prevents capable individuals from reaching their full potential. Higher education – still more accessible for whites and many Asian Americans than for blacks, Latinos and other minorities – is part of the problem.

That is why last week’s Supreme Court ruling in the University of Michigan case, preserving affirmative action in college admissions, is such a crucial victory.

While Brown and subsequent actions provided equality under law for the country’s racial minority groups, last week’s ruling was still needed to reach equality of opportunity. The decision opens doors for individuals from communities still facing prejudice, if not legalized discrimination.

The Michigan ruling gives Brown teeth by allowing for mechanisms that eliminate prejudices in education, the springboard to success in society.

The majority opinion on the Michigan Law School case, written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, did not focus the importance of diversity in education as an end in itself, but rather its role to provide fairness in society as a whole.

“Participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups ... is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized,” O’Connor wrote.

The opinion cited “friend of the court” briefs from Fortune 500 companies that expressed support for affirmative action in higher education, so that the business world might one day be more accessible to skilled individuals of color. O’Connor also cited testimony from high-ranking military officers who told of the importance of integrated officer corps.

It may seem contradictory that the court protected a university’s right to consider race, but struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy.

But the rulings, in actuality, were not contradictory at all. The Court, justified in protecting the concept of affirmative action, was also right to oppose Michigan’s undergraduate admissions point system, which did not consider applicants as individuals and assigned bonus points for race in an artificial way. The reason affirmative action is necessary is to ensure that individuals are not prohibited from advancing in society because of institutionalized prejudices. Therefore, a system that awards points without individual consideration, is flawed and does not keep with the spirit of Brown.

The Court’s ruling that race can be considered as one of many factors – as part of an examination of an applicant’s entire package – is a victory for the legacy of Brown and the advancement of civil rights.

Even if just for a brief moment, those students, professors, administrators, business leaders and legal experts who fought over the last few years to preserve equality of opportunity can now breath a sigh of relief.

Comments

Post a comment