Movin' on up, to the east side; we finally got a piece of the pie

For some reason, Michigan is always at the center of the affirmative action debate in the country. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's affirmative action framework, while approving the Law School's framework. This past November, voters approved a referendum ending any affirmative action policies enacted by the state government, ironically titled the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

Now, the affirmative action debate is much like the abortion debate. Neither represents an ideal situation, but both are an attempt to forge an acceptable compromise in the real world. It's easy enough to call for them to be eliminated, but it doesn't really begin to solve the underlying problems (unwanted pregnancies and institutional racial discrimination in America) that they were put in place to solve. As far as affirmative action goes, it serves a vital interest for or society to have diverse college and university student bodies. During one's formative years, it's good to meet people different than you, and it makes you a better person. I swear that most of the stupidity present in our day to day lives involves people not being able to empathize with their fellow men sufficiently to act like decent human beings. This is as central to the mission of a college as the actual classes. I don't remember most of the details I once regurgitated for tests, but I certainly remember meeting people and broadening my horizons a bit. Now, the process is being short-circuited by a bunch of whiny white people, which drives me nuts. I swear, nothing in the world is more pathetic than whiny white people. If ever anyone needed to be played a symphony of the world's smallest violins, it is my whiny brethren who feel that after being given every possible advantage a society can give a person, they still need more.

The saddest thing about the whole kerfuffle is that it makes it almost certain that some kids won't get to go to college at all so that others have a better chance to go to the school of their choice (a choice made during their teenage years, no less). As noted by Megan at her place, people place way, way too much emphasis on which school they get into. In physics, for example, there are a few schools that going to for grad school can influence the rest of your entire career (the science-heavy Ivies, MIT, Chicago, Berkeley, Cal Tech, etc.). Simply put, if you want to teach at one of these it helps to have experienced them from the other side. For literally every other career goal in physics, to say nothing of a career in any other field, it doesn't really matter so much. I can't name the similar groups of schools for professions (Law, Business, etc.), but it works pretty much the same way. Notice I'm talking grad school, for chrissakes. I started at a 300-student college and ended up at MIT, after all. Simply put, it doesn't matter which college you start at, because there are so many transitions you'll hit later that it eventually washes out. Life takes so many twists and turns that the place you start from is basically insignificant.

This is why it is absolutely crucial that schools make sure to maximize the number of students who get to go to college, not the number of kids who get their top choice. Having to settle for #2, instead of a top choice, is a couple days worth of moping and then in some cases a lasting grudge (bite me, Harvard). The choice between going to school and not is life-changing. Angry white people, it's called a "safety school". Apply to a couple, and everything else will work out ok, and everyone will get the chance to meet people who look a little different and hopefully not be racist assholes for the rest of their lives.

There are still ways in which the University of Michigan may still be able to salvage affairs. Remember, affirmative action isn't even a particularly graceful way of achieving its goals, and using a different method with the same results shouldn't bother anyone. In fact, Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly points us to a study put out by The Century Foundation. According to him:

The study found that if it's implemented well, (a) income-based affirmative action produces nearly as much racial diversity as race-based affirmative action, (b) it promotes economic diversity as well, and (c) it actually produces higher graduation rates than either a pure merit-based system (test scores and high school GPAs) or a traditional affirmative action program. What's more, it's an approach that most of the public finds inherently fair.

This is utterly brilliant. While residual racism makes it easy to take away a program aimed at minorities, justifying it based on economic grounds doesn't have the same taint in today's culture. The argument in favor is very, very easy. The richer the students, the more money spent on their elementary and secondary education. We can eliminate economic-based college admission policies, but we could also pool all property-tax supported education dollars, and redistribute them equally to all school districts in a state I don't think that many suburban school districts really want to make that trade. Hopefully, Michigan comes up with a solution like this. Given their track record, I feel pretty optimistic that they will.