The author believes that the debate over affirmative action [A] will soon be brought to an end. [B] has aroused many people’s awareness. [C] is a hot potato in the United States. [D] reflects partially the question of equality.
All of which raises a question: why are we still wrestling with this stuff Why, more than a quarter of a century after the high court ruled race had a legitimate place in university admissions decisions, are we still fighting over whether race should play a role
One answer is that the very idea of affirmative action--that is, systematically treating members of various groups differently in the pursuit of diversity or social justice--strikes some people as downright immoral. For to believe in affirmative action is to believe in a concept of equality turned upside down. It is to believe that "to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently, " as the idea was expressed by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.
That argument has never been an easy sell, even when made passionately by President Lyndon B. Johnson during an era in which prejudice was thicker than L. A. smog. Now the argument is infinitely more difficult to make. Even those generally supportive of affirmative action don’t like the connotations it sometimes carries. "No one wants preferential treatment, including African-Americans, "observed Ed Sarpolis, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan polling firm.
In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s right to use race in the pursuit of "diversity," even as it condemned the way the undergraduate school had chosen to do so. The decision left Jennifer Gratz, the named plaintiff, fuming. "I called Ward Connerly... and I said, ’We need to do something about this’, " recalled Gratz, an animated former cheerleader. They decided that if the Supreme Court wouldn’t give them what they wanted, they would take their case--and their proposition--directly to the people.
Californians disagree about the impact of Connerly’s proposition on their state. But despite some exceedingly grim predictions, the sky did not fall in. Most people went about their lives much as they always had.
In a sane world, the battle in Michigan, and indeed the battle over affirmative action writ large, would offer an opportunity to seriously engage a question the enemies and defenders of affirmative action claim to care about: how do you go about creating a society where all people--not just the lucky few--have the opportunities they deserve It is a question much broader than the debate over affirmative action. But until we begin to move toward an answer, the debate over affirmative action will continue--even if it is something of a sideshow to what should be the main event.