Expecting a great political debate, a friend called me after the Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action. However, both she and I responded with surprising indifference. We are both college students of Native Hawaiian background, but despite the stereotype, students of multicultural backgrounds do not thrive off policies where they are given a “preference” over Anglo-American students.Students do not go to a particular college for an “easy in;” they go to college for the program and experience they are looking for. I came to Iowa State because I wanted a large university with many options, since at the time I was an undeclared student. I knew I would be welcomed on campus, but also that I was not there because the Office of Admissions needed me as a statistic.

Once I am done with my undergraduate studies, I have every intention of attending law school. However, the University of Michigan, despite the high court’s reaffirmation of diversity preference, is not included in my choices. In fact, the University of Hawai’i at Manoa’s William S. Richardson School of Law, as well as the James E. Rogers School of Law at the University of Arizona, my top preferences for law schools, are unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling.These schools do not have a preference to students of particular ethnic backgrounds — instead, they seek out students who have both performed successfully on their previous academic experiences and done well on their law school entrance exams. To maximize my chances of getting into law school, I have to do my best now as an undergraduate, and I have no intentions of using my ethnicity for admission.

The reactions of Jennifer Gratz, Patrick Hamacher and Barbara Grutter, the students who originated these Supreme Court cases, are quite amusing. They had no problem with the admissions process of the University of Michigan before they were denied admission.

If they truly felt discriminated against by this policy beforehand, they would have spoken up earlier in the process.

They, as any college-bound student, were familiar with the admissions guidelines of the school they hoped to attend. When they applied, they were aware of the additional benefits received by multicultural students. If they felt at a loss, they should have spoken up then. They had the whole waiting period to make a stand.

Yet they waited until after they had been denied admission to complain. Jennifer, Patrick and Barbara weren’t feeling discriminated against, they were simply embarrassed. Instead of dealing with it like grown adults, they used affirmative action as a scapegoat, when in reality it was their own incompetence as students that denied them admission.

Assuming these students really were discriminated against(despite their slow reaction), it’s odd for them to still want to pursue an education at that institution. If I felt that an institution’s policies discriminated against me, I would rather go elsewhere. If these students truly felt at a loss, I don’t see how they could have misplaced their own morals or beliefs to attend an institution they felt did not value them.

Furthermore, if these students were really disturbed by college admissions policies, there are colleges nationwide that could be viewed as sexist. While the University of Michigan may have given some preference to students of multiculturalism, there are universities whose admission is restricted to a student’s gender — instead of giving preference, there is a supreme limitation. This also falls under equal protection promised in the 14th Amendment, which the students’ lawyers say in this case was violated.

The added point system for the application process is rather sketchy, so I side with the Supreme Court on the undergraduate ruling. Their admissions process giving “bonus points” was a far-stretch on affirmative action, so I’m happy to see it go. While admissions policies will change at some universities, Iowa State will see little change as the policies here are not ethnicity-based. The Supreme Court has upheld the importance of diversity in an educational experience. All students will benefit from a diverse campus, and as University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman agrees; they have a “commitment to a richly diverse student body,” even without a points system.

The Supreme Court upheld past decisions, such as Brown vs. the Board of Education and Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, and are obviously committed to moving forward instead of regressing.