crimination should be a role of affirmative action. The article by Kenneth Jost in CQ Researcher, says “The Supreme Court, in Bakke, said that racial classifications were constitutional if they were used as a remedy for proven discrimination” (Jost, 741). Contradictorily, David A. Harvey’s paper claimed that the Supreme Court said race-based admissions used to remedy past discrimination was unconstitutional. These contradicting views are a result of the various interpretations people have concluded from ruling regarding affirmative action. These pieces of scholarly research demonstrate that people, who have different opinions toward affirmative action programs, can look at the same evidence, and come to different conclusions. Those who favor race-based admission would support the idea that providing a remedy for past discrimination is a worthy cause. However, opponents of race-based admission argue that using affirmative action to make up for past discrimination is unconstitutional. “If you have criteria that discriminate and are not educationally justified, then the appropriate response is to get rid of those criteria, not to use two wrongs to make a right” (Jost, 741). Furthermore, opponents claim race-based admission simply discriminates against another group and repeats the wrongs of Americas past.

In addition to acting as a remedy for past wrongs, race-based admissions also promote diversity in the student population. While this is clearly represented in studies, the real question lies in whether diversity is as essential to the education process as proponents claim. The University of Michigan states that because of the 100,000 students that graduate from the states high schools, only three hundred and twenty seven African-Americans had a B+ average and a SAT score above 1,000, it has to give advantages to minorities in order to maintain a racially diverse student body. This claim rests upon the notion that diversity is essential in higher education. “Without the current bonus for minority applicants, the number of African-American and Hispanic students would drop dramatically from the current level of 13 percent of undergraduates to somewhere around 5 percent” (Jost, 742). In contrast Michael Rosman, attorney for the Center for Individual Rights in Washington says diversity is not a goal worthy of discrimination, or treating people differently because of race. Supporters of race-based admission claim to have social-science evidence that racial diversity illustrates a direct substantial educational benefit for all students. Opponents state that these programs promote stereotypes by saying there is a black outlook or an Asian outlook. In an effort to provide evidence of the educational benefit of racial diversity, Patricia Gurin, chairmen of the Psychological Department at the University of Michigan wrote: “Students are more motivated and better able to participate in an increasingly heterogeneous and complex democracy” (Jost, 750). Thomas E. Wood and Malcolm J. Sherman did a major critique of Gurin’s study in their book “Is Campus Racial Diversity Correlated With Educational Benefits?” They found that the national student database shows no relationship between the number of minorities on campus and educational benefits, and that diversity activities only had minor impacts on educational outcomes.

Despite the current debate between thos