Campus sees partisan divide on affirmative action

As some students yesterday showed their support for affirmative action on the "Day of Solidarity" by wearing black clothing, student opinion on the issue remains split on campus. Affirmative action was loosely defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1978 decision on the use of race as a factor in admissions. Penn students fall on all sides of the debate, from strong agreement to strong disagreement to having no opinion. "Personally, I'm in favor of affirmative action," said Rich Eisenberg, president of the Penn College Democrats. "I think [diversity] is a very important part of a college experience." Eisenberg argued that every school should be able to have an autonomous admissions policy that uses race as one factor among many. "Ultimately, a school's responsibility is to provide the atmosphere that it wants to provide," he explained. "It is not necessarily to bring in the students with the highest GPA." Wharton freshman Casey Ching disagreed, saying, "I am against [affirmative action]. I just think that admission into colleges, schools or workplaces should be based on personal skills. It shouldn't be based on what race you are." Affirmative action is the issue at hand right now for many student groups because it is again coming up for argument before the Supreme Court in April. The two cases set to decide the future of affirmative action -- Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger -- involve the constitutionality of the University of Michigan's policy, which grants additional admissions points to minority applicants. Many groups, including the Penn Democrats, are hoping to send buses down to Washington, D.C., so students can voice their opinions on April 1, the date the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the cases. Penn College Republicans Secretary Daniel Siegman disagrees with affirmative action and expressed regret that the issue has become so partisan that a consensus cannot be reached. "Unfortunately, I think the Democratic Party has decided that this issue can't be addressed in a bipartisan way," he said. "It's a moral issue, not a political issue. Any time that you're going to base decisions on race, it is just plain wrong." Undergraduate Assembly Chairman Seth Schreiberg also noted his disappointment with the partisan politics that have seemingly taken hold of this issue. "Sadly, I do think [it's become a partisan issue], and I wish it weren't the case," he said. "It seems to me that there is a breakdown on party lines. Democrats are typically in favor of affirmative action, and then you have President Bush signing one of the few briefs against it." Schreiberg ascribed the lack of consensus about affirmative action on campus to a dearth of available information for students. "I think that a lot of people think that affirmative action is only about race -- it's not," he explained. "It's looking at groups that are marginalized and underrepresented and bringing some kind of equity to a system that is rarely about equity." College freshman Ashley Smith said she sees the problems with affirmative action, but still thinks it is the only choice for promoting diversity. "I can see where there are problems with it, sort of giving advantage to people of different backgrounds, but all in all, it is a good thing," she said. One thing is sure, though -- the outcome of this court case has implications for all, regardless of one's opinion on the matter. "I don't make decisions based on the color of people's skin in my personal life, and I never intend to," Siegman said. "I hope people don't make decisions based on mine."