This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard one of the biggest cases dealing with the issue of race in the preceding 6 years: Abigail Fisher vs. University of Texas.
In summation, Fisher, a white woman, applied to UT in 2008, but was denied admission to the university, while other people who were "lesser qualified" than Fisher gained admittance.
“There were people in my class with lower grades, who weren't in all the activities I was in, who were accepted into UT. And the only difference between us was the color of our skin," Fisher remarks.
Fisher is challenging UT, claiming they use the issue of racial classification to admit less qualified students to the university, while students like herself, are then turned down, all because they didn't have the acceptable skin color to help the university reach a statistic for diversity, also known as "racial balancing" which was banned by the Supreme Court.
The verdict is still out, but those at home following the issue may inquire how this case was elevated to the Supreme Court. In 2003, the University of Michigan had a similar case, but won, even though heavily cautioned about their "narrow tailored" criteria regarding race and diversity. Primary schools in Seattle and Kentucky using race as a "tiebreaker" for admission to their schools had their decisions nullified.
So how can the same concept of using race to gain diversity, and consequently admission (or in Fisher's case, denial) have so many different rulings? I believe it's because we're still walking the fine line of being accused of discrimination. Society feels the need to almost overcompensate when dealing with a situation that contains race, and while I concede that we do need to factor in our sensitivity to this civil rights issue, I can't help but compare it with a person who has a disability and struggles with society treating them as an equal. I feel society often tries to create an advantage for the disadvantaged, even though all the disadvantaged want is to be seen as equal.