In a country with Constitution that appeared to be color blind, the United States Supreme Court has reaffirmed its stamp of approval for the use of race as a factor in admitting students to colleges and universities. The implications of the ruling are far reaching and undoubtedly will only perpetuate, not heal, the wounds of racial divide that have prevented the objective of a single indivisible nation without regard to race, color or creed.

For years, the courts have been content to accept the symptoms of racial inequality as opposed to address the disease itself. The latest decision involving preferential treatment to minority students in the admission process for the University of Michigan is no different. Not surprisingly, those content to patronize rather than empower minorities called the decision an “unqualified victory for affirmative action.”

Notwithstanding the claims of a “huge win”, the Supreme Court did place some significant restrictions on the use of race as a factor in admissions practices. The Court rejected the use of quotas for members of racial or ethnic groups. It also rejected the parallel or separate admission tracks for racial or ethnic groups. Race can not be the determining factor, whether through a point system as used by the University of Michigan, or through some other form imposing a quantifiable, as opposed to qualitative analysis. Finally, almost as if to admit the fundamental unfairness of any kind of racial bias, the Court appeared to self-impose a twenty-five year limit on its decision, as if the Constitution magically amends itself within that time frame to prohibit then what, according to the Court, it permits now.

The unfortunate assumption of the decision is that lower test scores, fewer extracurricular activities, and poorer educational opportunities are acceptable since the admissions process will compensate for these disadvantages at the collegiate application level. Indeed, the Court’s opinion suggests that the preferences on the basis of race be extended beyond post-secondary education. Like the welfare state that existed for decades, the Court’s decision appears premised on a belief that the solution to social ills is government assistance, not fundamental change. The result is often governmental dependence without need for change or improvement. Worse yet, Supreme Court sanctioned racial preferences reflect governmental approval of that which is unacceptable – decisions based on the color of one’s skin, not the content of one’s character.

The solution to the welfare state was jobs and opportunities. The solution to disadvantaged minority applicants is in addressing the factors that make them disadvantaged, not making “disadvantaged” acceptable or tolerable, or even preferable. But real solutions are difficult. It requires confronting real problems that impair the opportunities of minority students. It is much easier to just accept the problem and go on, than it is to fix the problem now.

Unfortunately, quick fixes (which are never really fixes at all) often make real fixes all the more difficult. Undoubtedly, the willingness of non-minority parents to support, politically and financially, the types of changes needed to correct the problems confronting minority students will only be lessened by the Court’s ruling.

Status quo made acceptable is change avoided. And so goes the United States Supreme Court.