Congratulations to the University of Michigan undergraduate class of 2008! Though you do not yet even know who you are, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently guaranteed you the right to equal treatment, regardless of your race. It now falls on the shoulders of the key decisionmakers at the University to make sure that the University's admissions policies comply with the ruling of the court to stop discrimination on the basis of race. Such a policy will be easy to implement for the University; there is already a rubric for admittance in effect. The court was clear in its decision. The 20 points must go.

The racial imbalance that has plagued both the workforce and higher education since the 1960s is not one for the University to solve. Despite the noble efforts of the University, a disparity between the races remains. However, the justices of the Supreme Court have recognized that it is not the responsibility of higher education to provide a remedy to problems that manifest before an applicant even submits his application. We as a society must work to supplement the education of those trapped in underperforming school systems, regardless of the students' races. The correct avenue to remedy the societal disparity is for the University to participate in changes to elementary education and work to strengthen the family. When we provide the youth of America with a strong elementary education, universities will not need to elevate the status of students to find qualified applicants of all races. By the time that students are ready to apply to college, a student's work ethic will have already been established. Reinforced values and a high quality education will benefit the youth of America much more than a handout at the post-secondary level.

The court's decision in both cases ruled that diversity is a compelling state interest for discrimination. There is not an American that will argue that diversity promotes a positive learning environment. However, diversity is more than skin deep. The University must make a better effort to explore the avenues of a colorblind admissions policy and work to create diversity based on the experiences and cultures of different individuals, rather than skin tone. Being of a certain race does not qualify a person to all of the characteristics or stereotypes that such race-based policies seek to create.

Plans have been introduced within the last five years in Texas, Florida and California to guarantee admission to students in the top percentiles of their graduating classes. The results of these experiments show that minority enrollment has remained the same, and the advantage is that such diversity is founded upon the principles of a united student body bound by the common bonds of high academic achievement. The advantage to these policies, besides having admissions policies consistent with the 14th Amendment, is that they all require state cooperation. Our governor, Jennifer Granholm, has expressed herself to be a proponent of diversity, and undoubtedly she should play an integral role in implementing such a program. When implemented in the state of Michigan, public education will be guaranteed to the most promising and intelligent - paramount of the public education model.

The court's decision also strives to break down stereotypes created by race-based admissions. Under the current system, the rationale is that diversity is achieved through racial preferences because different races have different experiences. However, these same methods that seek to classify the socio-economic status of an applicant by race, only further perpetuate stereotypes assigned to different races. Experiences and true diversity is comprised of a combination of different economic classes, geographical areas and political affiliations. If we are to learn anything from the civil rights era, it is that all men are created equal.