GUEST COLUMNIST: Put a cross-check on box-checkers

Regardless of whether you are opposed to or in favor of affirmative action, or an opponent or proponent for diversity, there is one thing that can be agreed upon -- the admissions process has to be box-checker proof. Box-checking occurs when an applicant falsely identifies himself or herself as a minority. Since Latinos range from blond-haired and blue-eyed to racially black, and sometimes do not speak Spanish, a box-checker can very easily pick up the identity and dispose of it when it no longer suits him or her without being detected. Box-checkers make false assertions to gain any possible preferential treatment and currently their is no way to detect such fraud. Sometimes an applicant will make this assertion knowing it is technically true. For example, the applicant has some trace of ethnic heritage by blood in his or her family (i.e. grandfather was Mexican) but the applicant's upbringing was outside of that heritage; or the applicant will claim to be Hispanic simply because he is from Spain (European). Such applicants nonetheless are Latinos only in name and can only identify as Latino when there is a perceived benefit, rather than some duty -- such as contributing the Latino perspective to the school. They do not have the culture ties or culture perspective that would make them a genuine addition to the school's diversity. Perhaps the most common example, the movie "Soul Man," was a comedy, yet in real life this is a serious and complex problem. As a Law student I am concerned about this problem and will present a brief analysis under two scenarios. First scenario; no material benefit. Assuming the school -- in no shape or form -- uses such information to admit or reject a student, award scholarships or appropriate funds to recruit the applicant, box-checking is wrong. First, box-checkers are committing fraud. Since the application notes the information is for diversity purposes and both types of box-checkers know they cannot provide that sought out diversity, their assertion is knowingly misleading the school to think otherwise. Second, it prevents the school from accurately determining how many of its applicants, admittees and students are Latinos -- thus the school has no method of gauging its recruiting methods or its compliance with state and federal EEOC regulations. Third, box-checking gives the school administration no incentive to strive for true diversity since the "numbers" falsely indicate that diversity exists. In the second scenario -- that is box-checking leads to some benefit -- the problems in the first instance are also compounded with other issues. First, the box-checker cheats non-Latino applicants. Whereas a box-checker would compete with the regular pool, box-checking has removed him or her from such competition. Second, against other Latinos, the applicant has gained a benefit that was not meant for him or her and has displaced a Latino student. For all intents and purposes, diversity and affirmative action become meaningless. Such acts when unchecked by schools, at best, allow for the status quo to exist and at worse become the newest form of discriminating against Latinos. In sum, at the law school level box-checking prevents diversity and allows for a new form of discrimination in admissions to exist. It cheats all students of a fair chance at admissions and takes advantage of the schools efforts and resources to create a diverse student body. More alarming however are the greater ramifications. These individuals committing this serious fraud are entering the legal profession with practice in cheating, stealing and deceiving. Society does not need anymore crooked lawyers. Moreover, since the ranks of Latinos at the law school do not increase, box-checking also means subsequently the number of latino lawyers also does not increase. The problem of box-checking exists at the Law School. I would suspect as many as half of the schools recognized latinos are box-checkers. At this time, since there is no way for the school to verify this information during admissions process, the perception or the reality that box-checking leads to a benefit will continue to encourage such misrepresentations. Box-checking and other similar false assertions also continue in other situations such as during career placement, and special programs and services ear-marked for latinos or minorities. To deal with this problem of fraud, some schools require additional essays that center around the claimed identity, or even questionnaires that are administered by the school's latino students, thus creating a post-acceptance back-up plan that can net fraudulent applicants. Perhaps the Law School could implement such strategies as well as other procedures that will prevent box-checking including expulsion when such misrepresentations surface after admissions and reporting to the American Bar Association. These penalties and strategies are appropriate considering the great harm this fraud creates to Latinos and the rest of our society.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.