THE NATION : CAMPUS CORRESPONDENT : The Myopic Debate on Race-Based Scholarships

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a case striking down a University of Maryland scholarship designed solely to benefit African American students. As a result, the university must award $35,000, the scholarship’s value, to the student who brought the discrimination claim, and the program itself--and possibly others similar to it at other universities--may be dismantled.

The case owes its celebrity, in part, to the general political debate over affirmative-action programs. A conservative law center took up the cause of Daniel Podberesky, a Latino, who claimed he was denied a scholarship because of his race. The White House joined the University of Maryland as a defender of the scholarship program. The scholarship’s supporters contended that the program helped to remedy the school’s abominable admissions policies that rejected black applicants until 1954. Opponents argued Podberesky was denied the scholarship because he was the “wrong color.”

When Americans see race, we invariably see red.

A lower court ruled that such race-based scholarships at public universities are unconstitutional. But it would be terribly irresponsible to view the Supreme Court’s decision as the end-all of the affirmative-action debate, because the Maryland case involved only a single program narrowly defined. All other preference-based programs were not addressed.

For example, nobody gets upset about scholarships and grants to help poor students. Legacy admissions, which benefit the children of alumni, are a longstanding and unchallenged tradition. Major universities such as Maryland and UCLA set aside full scholarships and benefits for athletes without so much as raising a disgruntled peep. Admissions and funds are routinely directed to artists, science students, children of faculty, women and other minorities.

When I graduated from high school, nobody thought my Sons of Italy scholarship was inappropriate. Nor did anyone knock the Scandinavian scholarship that helped subsidize my friend’s Harvard tuition. Soroptimists helped a female classmate go to Berkeley. The local NAACP aided many black students at my school. In my home town, private scholarships existed for students of all hues, from Portuguese to Filipino. I can’t recall anybody complaining, probably because everyone respected each community’s desire to aid their own.

Why, then, is the fury focused on programs for African American students? The Banneker program, which makes up only 1% of the University of Maryland’s financial-aid programs, is just one more scholarship among many targeting a specific group or interest. It is the height of narrow-minded hypocrisy to view it as discriminatory while turning a blind eye toward everything else.

Moreover, a universal ban on preferential scholarships would hurt deserving students of all backgrounds, reduce diversity and entrench racial discontent. White students predominate on most campuses at rates of more than 80%, so denying aid to minority students would not help university populations reflect their regions and the nation.

The Podberesky case is not completely resolved. The Supreme Court’s decision is not binding; the university can insist on an appeal. Even though the court appears to sympathize with the appeal court’s decision declaring such programs unconstitutional, it should be noted that the federal court that initially heard the case struck down Podberesky’s claim, ruling that Maryland’s past record of discrimination against blacks justified the preference program.

We would like America to be a colorblind meritocracy. But that never has been--and never will be. A better way to view America is through a prism that refracts the nation into its constituent colors. This is the way it always has been. The difference now is the we need to achieve equality of the races, where each gets its due.