By Justin Wilson

I am more than my race, class and gender. In fact, I'd venture to say that my race, class and gender probably play a small role in who I truly am. Yet in the eyes of the University, I'm just another check in a box - another white, middle-class, male applicant. But does a couple of check marks measure what I bring to campus? No, and to think so is to disrespect the very heart of human dignity. We are all much more than just the color of our skin.

Yet according to the May 14 ruling, which upheld the Law School's use of racial preferences and the 1978 Bakke decision, that is all I am - a nameless, faceless, white guy.

I do not deny that America has a checkered history and I do not deny that enormous social inequality exists. I also believe that something must be done to resolve it, but I don't see how we, as a nation, can reconcile affirmative action and the ultimate goal of a color-blind society, when affirmative action is a program that by definition makes judgments based solely on a person's race.

How can just ends be achieved by unjust means? Especially when those means do not address the root of the problem or provide the best possible solution.

In the '50s and '60s, America decided that judging anyone by their race was inappropriate, and under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, illegal. But that is exactly what the 6th Circuit's decision allows and the University practices. Racial preferences in university admissions stand as the last government permissible measures that judge people by their race. How can this stand as a compelling government interest? The government is willing to allow unjust means to accomplish just ends. That is, the 6th Circuit feels that patently racist admissions policies are A-ok, so long as they promote the dubious concept of academic diversity.

This is an important distinction, insofar that the May 14 decision rejects the use of affirmative action to remedy past social injustices or promote social equality of any sort. Under the Bakke decision, Justice Powell said that racial preference may only be used as one of many "plus" factors in admissions and only to create academic diversity.

As a result, the University claims that the necessity of a "critical mass" of minorities, which might as well be a quota system, is a compelling government interest. They contend that the presence of minorities in a law school positively benefits the entire institution. And they also hold that they must admit a "critical mass" of minorities to prevent the others from feeling isolated or lonely.

The problem is that academic diversity is a sham and only a cover for the University's hidden social justice agenda. Never once has an administrator uttered a word about affirmative action and social equality. To do so would be legal suicide, as their cover-up might be exposed and ruled unconstitutional under Bakke. Instead, they all toe the diversity line. It is not only disingenuous to the community and legal system, but disrespectful to the very dignity of minorities.

A Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and Integration and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary member once said, "Minorities are not like trees - they can't bring us here to make campus a little prettier." But that is exactly what the administration is doing. The diversity defense does nothing but use minorities to make campus a little more colorful.

The sad fact is that for all the efforts the University has undertaken to create diversity, campus remains largely segregated. From separate but equal residence hall lounges to segregated so-called multi-cultural student groups, the University community has failed in fostering true diversity.

This raises a much broader question: What is diversity?

According to the Law School, it is little more than an applicant's race, class and gender, but we are much more than that. But the University largely ignores an applicant's true diversity, insofar that real diversity runs counter to the hidden agenda of admitting a large number of minorities to promote social justice. There is no other reason explaining why the University ignores so many other factors. In his dissent, Justice Boggs points out that the University completely disregards many other critical factors influencing diversity such as religion, geographic region or political persuasion, at the same time, Jews, Michiganders and liberals are all over-represented. The May 14 ruling supporting the University's idea diversity is insulting and degrading. It is divisive and runs counter to the very idea of equality.

Wilson is an LSA graduate and former Editor in Chief of The Michigan Review.