I remember the days of college admissions at my high school-an elitist, rich, and outright distinguished prep school. At my school, there was talk of students competing for spots at America's top undergraduate institutions because Harvard, Yale, and other top schools could only accept a limited number of students from our graduating class. Although I was a strong believer in affirmative action at the time, I could not morally accept the affirmative action policies which boosted students of color into the top universities in place of outstanding white candidates. At my high school, three minority students who had B/B+ averages and no impressive involvement in athletics or extracurriculars were admitted to Harvard, Dartmouth, and Williams. I repeatedly tried to convince myself that my darker-skinned classmates deserved the advantages of affirmative action as compensation for injuries sustained throughout our nation's history.
But I kept asking myself-why should someone in a stable family of good means, who attends one of the top high schools in the nation benefit from affirmative action? This student of color has had the same wonderful opportunities in life as I, and like myself is lucky enough not to have faced serious economic and social problems throughout his life. If he has made the most of his opportunities, then he is qualified to attend one of America's top universities, but if he has not, he has no excuse for his average performance.
Affirmative action was meant to be an equal opportunity program aimed at eliminating the disparate economic conditions among whites and non-whites. With this in mind, it should be implemented as an economic program and not as a program of racial equity. When colleges consider an applicant, they should consider how he has performed within his means. Since the average minority student is not as wealthy as the average white student, minorities will inevitably have fewer educational opportunities and more socio-economic problems. Their socio-economic condition, and not their race, should thus be considered positively by college admissions officers who might otherwise only see an average student. In this way, colleges like Yale will accept the best and the brightest-students who have demonstrated a pattern of achievement.
Some people claim that affirmative action also has a social purpose, to diversify college campuses and the workplace, and that therefore a minority applicant has an "extra something" which he can add to the community. However, in this day and age of self-segregation on college campuses, when each racial group has its own cultural organization, its own fraternity, and at some colleges its own living quarters, diversity has become a meaningless word. One goes to the dining hall and often witnesses blacks, Asians, and whites eating as separate groups. At Yale, ethnic counselors allow minority students to take their problems to someone of their own race. People have the right to self-segregate, but they cannot then claim they are adding to the diversity of the college campus.
With no political purpose, affirmative action must be implemented solely as an equal economic opportunity program. The racial aspect must be ignored, so that even white students who have performed well within limited means should get special treatment. Furthermore, affirmative action with-in the workplace (except in occupations where diversity is important, such as teaching) should be sharply curtailed, because affirmative action in the university has already given minorities the chance to demonstrate their talents. In this way, a new, scaled-back, and revitalized affirmative action program will help the people who most need help, and it will help them help themselves, without reducing the quality of our nation's hallowed institutions.
Justin Bergner is a freshman in Saybrook College.