Society Organized Against Racism (SOAR) held a panel discussion on affirmative action Thursday, featuring Professors Steven Teles (POL), Richard Gaskins (LGS) and Sadhana Bery (SOC) and Director of Enrollment Deena Whitfield. Students Ebone Bishop '04, Jennifer Nelligan '06 and David Fryman '04 also spoke at the forum.According to SOAR Student Coordinator Noah Browne '03, the purpose of the discussion, which was attended by over 60 people, was to "move beyond what we hear in the media (about affirmative action)."

"The goal of the panel was to educate the campus community about some of the nuances and intricacies of affirmative action and how it is practiced (or not practiced) today," Browne said. "The debate is often cast in very simplistic and rhetorical terms -- from either side -- and we sought to provide a deeper analysis than what the media usually feeds us."

Teles outlined the history of affirmative action from its implementation by President Richard Nixon to the present day. He said minority groups did not initially support affirmative action. One reason he gave for the creation of affirmative action was "administrative efficiency," serving colleges seeking to diversify.

Teles said affirmative action's origins were political. "(Affirmative action's purpose was to) create conflict between the white ethnic union workers who controlled the construction trades and the African-Americans who were being inserted into the industry," he said. "Unions and blacks were core Democratic constituencies."

He also said it is hard to measure the effectiveness of affirmative action. "Most minority students go to non-selective or effectively non-selective institutions. Affirmative action ... just doesn't touch most of the institutions that most racial minorities participate in," Teles said.

Gaskins described the legal ramifications of affirmative action, set by the Supreme Court in the Bakke v. Board of Regents of University of California, Davis case. According to Gaskins, "four (out of nine) justices agreed that if (affirmative action) was meant to achieve diversity, it was constitutional," under the fourteenth amendment guaranteeing equal protection. Another four justices said there was no way it could be considered constitutional, even under the fourteenth amendment, Gaskins said.

"(One) can't stare at the constitution and determine which interpretation is right," he said. Justice Powel carved a space in the middle, basically adopting an equivocal stance that supported both positions, Gaskins said.

Gaskins also said, "(the most) jockeying will come on how to define Powel's stance," during arguments and cases regarding affirmative action. He also said one possible ruling in the upcoming case against the use of affirmative action in the University of Michigan law school "might be to narrow this middle ground," leaving less room to experiment with the system.

Bery spoke next. She said she thought affirmative action should be analyzed "where it lies in the context of other movements that try to rectify the wrongs that have been committed against minority groups." She said many "governments have to redress the wrongs" committed against minorities under their watch.

She also said the power to make these remunerations rests in the hands of the majority. "Minorities don't have the power or resources to determine if this should or should not happen," she said.

Bery said the best system of affirmative action is the one that "creates equality in a way that allows it to work in the future."

Whitfield spoke next about how important it is for Brandeis to have a diversified campus. She said it is important to create a "place where people are on the forefront of wanting diversity and creating diversity."

"(It) increases the value of (classroom) discussions," she said.

Diversifying campuses is market-driven as well, she said. According to Whitfield, a common request made by many potential students is "tell me about the diversity on campus."

"(Potential students) don't want to go to a place where everyone looks exactly like them," she said, adding, "(the) role of admissions is to shape a community."

To close the discussion, the three students on the panel talked about their backgrounds and what they thought about affirmative action. Browne said, "students were asked to serve on the panel to add some perspective. We all bring very different experiences to the table, and we wanted a forum in which students could relate their own experiences to the discussion on affirmative action."

Bishop, the first of the student-speakers, said that when she got to Brandeis as a first-year, the "race card was in (her) face." Bishop, who is black, was also disappointed that many "people assumed that all the diversity on campus came from the Posse or similar programs," which bring underprivileged students to Brandeis.

The next speaker was Nelligan, an Asian who was adopted by white parents in the United States. "(Diversity is) essential to breaking stereotypes," she said.

Fryman spoke last. An orthodox Jew from Long Island, N.Y., he said the problem with affirmative action is it groups people according to their race. "Many people don't like the idea of being added to a group," he said.

"Saying that I'm white doesn't help to describe me," Fryman added. He said he thinks diversity can be accomplished on campus without focusing on the issue of race.

The forum concluded with a period of questions from those in attendance.

Union Secretary Ana Yoselin Bugallo '03, who attended the forum, said affirmative action is not an ideal means of achieving diversity on college campuses, but there is no other alternative. "Any policy that grades people on innate qualities is not perfect ... but it has to be given a chance," she said.

Joseph Shmulewitz '06, another attendee, said he thinks affirmative action puts many talented students at a disadvantage. "Essentially, what affirmative action does is it gives a certain number of people admission to a university not because they are qualified academically but for other reasons," he said.

"These students take the place of other qualified students who unfortunately do not get admitted because they don't have the same credentials," he said.

"It is hard to tackle an issue as controversial and emotional as affirmative action and not have it degenerate into a divisive or fractured discussion," Browne said. "But, I think that the panelists made well-informed and unique presentations while also fielding some challenging questions from students.