There’s another huge issue looming before the Supreme Court: the admissions policy of the University of Michigan law school. The program has come under fire because it awards points in the admissions process based on skin color.

If you are not familiar with this program’s admissions setup, let me fill you in. The program reportedly uses a 150-point scale, with students being admitted who reach 100 points. Applicants who are non-white receive 20 points for being so. In comparison, applicants who received perfect SAT scores receive 12 points.

Most people in favor of a discriminatory program such as this believe that it accomplishes “diversity.” Even those who are opposed to the program do agree, however, that a diverse campus is a better one, since education is a forum for ideas. Like most of us, President Bush believes this principle as well. “I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education, but the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this goal is fundamentally flawed,” he said earlier this month.

This is in fact the issue, and Bush understands. This program does not satisfy the public interest because it is illegal, does not support high standards in education, and is racially divisive.

Even a student can look at the law and very easily see that the program is blatantly illegal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act states in section VI, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Clearly the law says that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any federally assisted program.

So what does discrimination mean? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, discrimination means “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.” Therefore, if any public institution treats any person differently because of their skin color, the program is illegal.

The law aside, there are still fundamental flaws in this policy. Specifically, the program lowers standards for nonwhite students. Nonwhites don’t need preferential treatment to succeed, but programs such as this suggest just that. I find this program offensive, but if I were a racial minority I would find it even more so. All students must have the right to be judged on merit and not their skin color.

A prominent journalist made a good point on this issue. “Making decisions in the marketplace based on a person’s ethnicity is flat-out racism and un-American; however, a person’s background should be taken into consideration, especially by colleges. If I’m a college admissions director, I look at the family income of the applicant. If that applicant comes from a poor family and has achieved some success in high school, that applicant automatically gets a huge bump up.” This technique judges a person on their success within the context of their surroundings, giving special attention to those individuals who have shown strength from disadvantaged backgrounds, regardless of race.

Admissions policies like the one at the University of Michigan are extremely divisive. Just look at the uproar that has ensued since the policy was made known. Not only does it pit student against student based on race, it naturally fuels bigotry when individuals have to wonder if another person has the degree because they are of a high caliber, or if they were permitted in the program because they were a certain race.

After Bush’s announcement that the administration was filing a brief against the policy, Senator Tom Daschle wasted no time in jumping on the situation. Several hours after President Bush’s statement, Daschle was ranting about “equal opportunity.” That’s funny, because programs like this one promote inequality and division among races. And we’re not talking about underlying or indirect effects. This policy is flagrantly and belligerently discriminatory.

In 1997 the Clinton administration supported a white high school teacher in her claim that she was dismissed because of her race, while a black teacher was retained. At that time the justice department (under Clinton) said “a simple desire to promote diversity for its own sake … is not a permissible basis for taking race into account.”

So what has changed since then? Why does the Democratic Party target Bush now, when Clinton made the same argument in 1997? Very simply, Bush is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat. The donkeys are already gearing up for the 2004 election, and they are scared of this popular president being elected again (and rightfully so). They have calculated the party’s political gain for Bush bashing, and they feel it is in their personal interest to demonize Bush as a racist (or at least racially insensitive).

It was Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King spoke out in an effort to bring about equal treatment, not preferential treatment.

President Bush sees eye to eye with Dr. King’s position. “As a nation, as a government, and as individuals, we must be vigilant in responding to prejudice wherever we find it, [and] work to address the wrong of racial prejudice.” This quote is not from Martin Luther King Jr., it is from George Walker Bush Jr.

Nathan Borst is a senior in political science from Ames.