Usually, spring classes begin the day after the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King's, Jr. birthday, on the third Monday of January. This year, Brandeis students have had the great opportunity to be together, on campus, on this important American holiday. Now we have the chance to recognize as a community the importance of one of America's greatest visionaries. It is also beneficial for students to have this opportunity at this very moment, when race in this country has reemerged as a contentious issue.The remarks of Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., who claimed that this country would have been better off if segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948, should compel us all to ask how far we as Americans really have come since civil rights legislation was passed more than three decades ago. Now, the validity of affirmative action, which was designed to increase diversity in predominantly white and male universities and industries, is again being questioned.

Last week, President Bush rightly opposed the University of Michigan's affirmative action program, which gives black and Latino applicants extra points in the admissions equation -- 20 points out of 150 -- for being part of underrepresented minority groups. Whether this system helps create diversity at Michigan is irrelevant; it is simply unfair.

As opposed to the University of Michigan, Brandeis' diversification program takes a holistic approach. According to Vice President for Students and Enrollment Jean Eddy, rather than inflating the value of an application from a student of color or relaxing the University's standards for admission, Brandeis attempts to actively recruit qualified students of color through scholarships and other programs that expand the criteria for admission for those applying from a disadvantaged position. To grant applicants extra points for their skin color is unjust, and whether or not it lowers admissions standards, it is certainly patronizing to those applicants who receive the points.

While an uneven demographic is in fact a reality, discrimination must be addressed at its roots, not estimated and compensated for in retrospect. There is a danger in assuming that all black and Latino candidates come from a disadvantaged position. Also, while generalization might seem essential in redressing the discrimination that an entire race has faced, when it boils down to assessing the merits of an applicant, it is unjust to shift the balance in favor of underrepresented minority groups.

The major problem of the University of Michigan's affirmative action lies not only in its approach in compensating for this inequality, but more so in designating it as a purely racial issue. The racially prejudiced argument that minority children often attend under-funded schools and have limited access to outside resources overlooks that these factors are better defined as socio-economic than merely racial.

A university can become more diverse, however, even if it does not actively seek out students based on race. Disadvantage is often a product of economic adversity, not of race. A university can eliminate the race box on its application and still end up a more diverse institution if it seeks out the economically disadvantaged. But, if institutions of higher learning must seek out solid applicants based on race, these universities must be sure to do so in a fair and just manner. The University of Michigan, therefore, must update its admissions policies to reflect what is truly fair and conducive to creating a more diverse campus.