David Price: “I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment. This amendment would involve an unprecedented Federal intrusion into the…”

“I rise in opposition to the Riggs amendment. This amendment would involve an unprecedented Federal intrusion into the admissions practices of colleges and universities. It would require an extensive apparatus to monitor admissions policies nationally. This seems monumentally unwise. Twenty years ago, the Bakke decision developed a careful and delicate balance for college admissions. Quotas were declared unconstitutional, as they should be. Gender and race can never be the sole or decisive factor in the admissions process. This made sense then and it makes sense now. But colleges and universities should be able to reach out to widen their pool of applicants, to bring previously deprived or disenfranchised people into higher education without fear of legal retribution. I know how this works from my years of experience as an admissions officer in a graduate department of a large university. Affirmative action offers a way of taking into account the backgrounds from which students come, assessing their true potential, and opening the doors of opportunity. For the Federal Government to interject itself into these decisions, to reduce flexibility, to force the use of overly narrow or rigid criteria, would be most unwise. Affirmative action, Mr. Chairman, is about fairness and equal opportunity for individuals. But it is also about community: about the academic community itself, diversifying that community to make education a broadening and enriching experience.”