"The fundamental problem with the diversity rational is that it depends upon the standardless discretion of educators. If that is the rule we end up accepting, then universities are free in their discretion to choose which races are discriminated against, which are favored. An example of that is found in comparing the facts of this case to the Bakke case, where in Bakke, Asian Americans were included in the preference, and under the University of Michigan's systems, they are excluded," stated Kirk Kolbo, attorney for the plaintiffs, in his argument before the Supreme Court.

In 1997 two white students, Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz were rejected to the university's law school and undergraduate program, respectively, because they could not earn the 20 admission points which are automatically awarded to groups of preferred minority status.

Either way, the Supreme Court's decision in these landmark cases will seriously impact race-relations in America. It is also a topic that has the population divided: African Americans and Latin Americans who are proponents of affirmative action are pitted directly against Caucasion students who often oppose the program.

What is missing in this equation is the Asian factor, and the outcome of these proceedings can have dire consequences on the community that the media often neglects in this contentious politics of black and white. For Asian Americans, the policy behind affirmative action has been a blessing and a curse.

In 1961, the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity was instituted, aimed to eliminate discrimination based on race, national and religious origin: It was America's reparation for historical prejudices and injuries towards blacks.

The plaintiffs and their counsel argue that race-based admissions preferences violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the individual. "The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, not racial groups," asserted Mr. Kolbo.

While affirmative action, in theory, was designed to protect all minority groups from pernicious acts of discrimination, evidence has surfaced in recent years that the program does not consider Asians Americans as a member of the minority group.

The Census reports show that Asians make up less than 4 percent of the population in the United States. In New York, the Asian demographics make up 5.6 percent of the population while blacks and Hispanics have a combined number of 27.6 percent.

Asians also suffer from racial discrimination and stereotyping, another criteria necessary to remain affirmative action eligible. But universities, especially those on the West Coast, repeatedly used race-based admission policies to exclude Asians, setting an unusually high standard for incoming Asian students, thereby rejecting even those applicants with the highest academic records. At the same time, the schools also lowered its academic criteria to admit the more "desired groups," like blacks and Hispanics, into their institutions: University of Washington, California, and Maryland medical schools are just few institutions that sought to trim Asian enrollment.

The Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) finds that the competitive schools exercised a greater degree of racial preference. Asians, in particular were not included in the preference, and in many categories were systematically rejected over less qualified, minority students. The CEO also found that medical schools "take race into account in the admissions process" to create a racially diverse student body.

"It was my experience that Asians were not beneficiaries of affirmative action. If anything, as students, we were thought of as not as economically disadvantaged as other minorities," says Robert Lee, an alumni of San Francisco State.

The Asian American Legal Foundation (AALF) submitted a brief to the Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs' Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz claims of inequities in Michigan's admissions policies. They argued that Asian Americans have historically experienced and continue to experience racial and ethnic prejudice in America.

"There is no difference," argued the AALF in their documents, "between a policy admitting some people because there are not enough of their race, and a policy of excluding others because there are 'too many' of theirs."

Many argue that a diverse environment is an intangible, unquantifiable benefit for all the students who are part of an intellectual community. Stanley Rothman, professor at Smith College, conducted several surveys to validate the claim that a diverse environment truly did extend to a well-rounded education. His findings resulted in contradictory conclusions when testing campuses with a proportionate number of black students.

"Diversity fails to deliver when all else is equal," he writes in the New York Times. "A higher level of diversity is associated with less educational satisfaction and worse race-relations among students."

Rothman performed the same survey in schools with higher proportion of Asian students. As the proportion of Asian students increased, faculty members and administrators reportedly perceived an improvement in the academic quality of their students. Thus, support for the diversity argument comes with respect to the minority often excluded from preferential admissions programs. Rothman also discovered that -- "85 percent of students specifically reject the use of racial or ethnic preferences... 62 percent of minority students oppose relaxing [admissions] standards, and 71 percent oppose preferences," he reports.

Another startling discovery was made when Rothman questioned faculty and administrators, with guarantee of anonymity, regarding race-preferential admissions: 47.7 percent opposed the idea.

"Why should an Asian student in dire economic straits be looked over for a black or Latino student in similar economic straits?" asks an irate William Phung, a sophomore at NYU.

"Many of us are the children of immigrants or are immigrants ourselves. We do not all have parents who work for big software companies and bring in six-figure incomes. Many of our parents work in restaurants or other small businesses, trying desperately to afford college education. As much as affirmative action is racist against blacks and Hispanics, because it assumes that they are not as smart as other students, it is also racist against Asians for assuming we are all rich, geniuses."

"In theory, a diverse student body helps, but in reality, student groups have a tendency to divide themselves into homogenous cliques, dissolving the diversity that affirmative action seeks to create. No studies, no numbers, no statistics exist to show diversity helps education. Many studies, numbers, and statistics exist to show how qualified Asian students are losing out for a spot in top colleges," Phung says.

Patrick Gibbons, a political science major from Penn State, makes an analogy with race preference admissions and sports. He lampoons affirmative action in higher education, insisting that race-based admissions, if applied in schools, should also be implemented in athletics where the minorities are whites and Asians.

"The athletes in pro sports are chosen for their ability, not because they might have been discriminated against. The sports world wants you because you are great. Affirmative Action in education takes away from those students who excel in school," Gibbons writes in the student-operated paper, The Digital Collegian.

Still, the majority of the population, Asians included, are proponents of affirmative action and many believe that a policy to give underrepresented students a boost in higher education is worth preserving.

"I believe in diversity. If left to their own devices, schools and work places will discriminate against people of color, through racism, thoughtlessness, and simple neglect," says Ken Narasaki, artistic director of a Los Angeles theater company.

When questioned on how the Court decision could affect the Asian American community, Narasaki admitted that, "If the White House wins this one, it will probably benefit the Asian community, at least where college is concerned, at least in California, where the odds are stacked higher against Asian Americans." He was quick to add, "But I'm still in favor of affirmative action, just as I believe aggrieved whites should still look at the big picture."

Roger Tang, 46, a fundraiser, is another defender of affirmative action programs, though he "supports it in a limited fashion."

"In areas such as upper level management," Tang says, "such programs should be in place and aimed at developing the supply of qualified candidates and at making sure the supply of candidates are used and not passed up for spurious reasons. Otherwise, affirmative action is a toothless beast that's a sop for mainstream guilt.

Narasaki and Tang's opinion on the Michigan case is the voice of the majority. For the most part, Asians still heavily favor the implementation of diversity programs in schools and employment situations.

"Michigan is a very segregated state," stated John Payton before the Supreme Court. "The University's entering students come from these settings and have rarely had experiences across racial or ethnic lines. They have not lived together, played together. They've certainly not played together. Students learn a tremendous amount from each other," he argued for the undergraduate school in question.

"Critical mass is when you have enough of those students [African Americans] so they feel comfortable acting as students. I'm not saying it's a percent and I'm not saying it's a fixed range but 12 percent to 17 percent is sort of how it is ranged, and that has generated the representation in the small groups and that is what is working to achieve some of these educational benefits."

In support of Michigan's affirmative action policies to promote diversity, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium (NAPAL) and 27 other organizations, filed a brief rejecting the idea that race-preferential admissions exclude Asian applicants.

"Michigan's decision to treat Asian Pacific Americans differently from [other] underrepresented minorities is justified by the fact that Michigan already admits APA's in significant numbers."

Asian leaders offered their suggestions on reforming affirmative action policies to best serve all the groups involved.

Tang suggests using "class and background income on a larger basis as a factor in affirmative action. It focuses attention on getting opportunity to those who need it. There is a great deal of poor whites whose needs are not being met. It doesn't do anybody any good to ignore either poor whites or poor minorities; programs should be designed to lift both up."

Lee says, "I think it works well now."

Others, like Phung, staunchly believe that, "Affirmative action should be eliminated immediately . Students should compete on a level playing field, based on merit."

No matter what the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings, it is certain that no group will be completely satisfied.

Copyright 2003 AsianDiversity.com