Members of several minority groups at UNM said they view the United States as a racist entity that continues to segregate minorities from acceptance into higher-educational institutions and the pursuit of the American dream.
Students from the UNM School of Law formed a panel discussion to inform the public about Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, two current United States Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action in college admissions.
The panel included members from organizations across the country who argued both sides of the issue to a large crowd Tuesday, in the law school's auditorium.
Shanta Driver, the national coordinator for United for Equality and Affirmative Action and the panel's student intervener representative, said that white privilege is defended by the words of the Declaration of Independence and that inequality and segregation are defended by law in the United States.
"Affirmative action programs were designed to un-segregate America," Driver said. "We need them to break through the blockade of racism that exists in the U.S."
She added that grade-point averages and aptitude tests such as the LSAT are biased and nothing but "sentries standing at the door of success to keep minority students out."
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
David Rogers, co-plaintiff in the landmark court case Hopwood v. Texas, which ended race-based preference at the University of Texas, disagreed, saying that special treatment because of ethnic background is constitutionally and ethically wrong.
"Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that each of us should be judged by the strength of our character, not the color of our skin," Rogers said of the disservice that majorities are treated to in favor of minority quotas.
Rogers said the words in the Declaration of Independence that say all men are created equal and are granted the same opportunities for happiness need to be respected. He added that no group should have success handed to it on a silver platter.
"We all hear a lot about diversity," Rogers said. "That only means racial bean counting, allowing minority groups privilege because of the color of their skin."
Dick Gonzales, chairman of the UNM School of Law Admissions Committee, said that the school has made a concerted effort to move away from a mechanical system of looking at diversity as a determining factor in admittance into the program.
He added that the school's admissions committee is instructed to consider life experiences of prospective students, including those related to ethnicity and national origin.
"We believe we are looking at the whole person in deciding who we will grant acceptance to," Gonzales said.
Charlotte Johnson, panelist and assistant dean of the University of Michigan, said that race should be one of many factors used when considering a student's application.
It's the admissions policies at the Michigan law school that is at the heart of the two Supreme Court cases.
"Our nation has not achieved the color-blind ideal. Nor can we achieve a color-blind society by ignoring the fact that race permeates -- it matters in America," Johnson said. "We cannot afford to turn back the clock on integration."
Wade Jackson, a third-year law student and the president of the American Civil Rights Union at UNM, said that the purpose of diversity is to have people of different backgrounds to add to the overall educational experience.
He said that the people who made these policies are blind to the goals they purport to seek, that regardless of benefit or burden, racial profiling is wrong.
"Anyone who works hard and perseveres through obstacles that we all face can achieve any level of greatness they desire," Jackson said. "The American dream is being trampled on by what has become affirmative action in the United States."
