In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School, which uses race as a consideration for admissions. However, on the same day in a 6-3 decision, it struck down the undergraduate school admissions policy that automatically granted 20 out of a possible 100 points to black, Hispanic, and Native American applicants. The result is that yet again the Supreme Court has failed to offer a clear position on raced-based academic admissions, and on affirmative action in general.

In upholding the Law School’s policies, the Court supports the notion that student body “diversity” is a “compelling” state interest that can justify using race as criteria for admissions, and that diversity is essential to the university’s mission. This purported goal of “diversity” is not and should not be the mission of this or any academic establishment. Schools exist to educate and provide students with the academic tools required for self-improvement and to make a positive contribution to themselves and to society – not to impose some artificial mosaic of skin color to make administrators feel good about themselves.

While the self-anointed façade of school administrators alleges to help “select” minorities upon entry, it neglects to ensure that these same individuals who have “benefited” from this so-called diversity are able to exit with a degree. In the 2001-2002 school year at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a paltry 6.9% of the total degrees conferred were to black students, and a mere 4% to Hispanics. The undergraduate graduation rate of 66% for black students six years after initial entry is the lowest at the university, as compared to 87% and 86% for white and Asian students, respectively.

In contrast to the Law School decision, the Court ruled that weighting applicants (via additional points) based on race was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Hence, the apparent conflict arises. If weighting applicants based on race is wrong, then isn’t using race as criteria for admission, which is essentially giving additional preference based on race, equally wrong? Both create a disadvantage for those who do not fall into their classification of “underrepresented”, by making skin-color a pre-requisite for special treatment.

At the end of the day, the Court has enabled academic institutions to continue to discriminate against those who do not fulfill their goals of “diversity” - doing a disservice to them, as well as to those who are supposedly benefiting from such a policy, despite lagging completion rates. Nevertheless, administrators and affirmative action supporters appear less concerned about these students’ ability to compete and complete, than they are about their ability to sleep at night believing that they have done their “good deed” to “help” the education of the “underrepresented.”