Cultural diversity has been a recent topic of concern after Bay Buchanan’s recent lecture. The Youth for Western Civilization’s agenda does not concern me. I’m interested in something closer to home: affirmative action.

Some students may not realize it, but Vanderbilt Undergraduate Admissions does factor in ethnic origin into its determination of acceptances, wait lists and rejections.

Affirmative action was initially conceived to help out intelligent but disadvantaged youth gain acceptance to a college within their abilities. While a noble ideal, it has been hijacked to promote political and cultural agendas instead of promoting higher education.

Friedrich Huebler produced a study of educational life expectancy (i.e. time spent in an educational institution) versus the per capita GDP of various countries. He compiled data from UNESCO, the World Bank and the U.N. Population Division, which lead to a rather unsurprising conclusion: Affluence played a significant role in the education levels of populations. There were, however, some aberrations in Western Asia and Latin America, both of which had a lower educational life expectancy despite having a higher GDP.

While this data merely compared separate countries, the conclusions would be equally applicable to different socioeconomic levels within a state (in this case, the U.S.). Growing up in poverty has a negative effect on both the duration and quality of an individual’s education. Affirmative action focuses on race, providing support on an inaccurate basis.

Schools are supported heavily by property taxes — taxes that are levied based on the value of the land. In poorer regions, the value of the tax is low. This provides less money to support schools that are in dire need of financial help. This leaves students in certain sections of the country essentially left behind. If undergraduate universities were actually interested in equality or fairness of educational standards, admissions would be based on financial, not racial background.

So why isn’t this so? The simplest answer is that universities are attempting to foist a political agenda in the name of good will. Admissions officers at many institutions will be quick to cite diversity as the benefit of the educational experience. While diversity does broaden the campus experience, it has become synonymous with prestige — a comparison that lacks credibility. Diversity is a political statement, not an educational one.

Furthermore, targeting race instead of relative affluence prevents the admissions office from putting more strain on an already heavily taxed student aid initiative. As far as institutions are concerned, affirmative action produces positive externalities in the form of popular perception, minimizing the costs in the long run.

Of course, there are those who claim it allows underqualified candidates to go to elite universities, theoretically devaluing the degree. This is a rather moot point. Being accepted does not ensure graduation. If you manage to graduate from a four-year institution like Vanderbilt, you’ve taken the same courses and received comparable grades. There’s no question, you’ve earned your degree. Affirmative action does not affect the value of the degree — that relies on the quality of facilities and administration.

I’m not saying affirmative action is ethically wrong, it’s just inert. It doesn’t achieve its goals and might disadvantage those who are already in fact disadvantaged. Don’t pat yourself on the back — it accomplishes nothing. You want to improve education in America? Hire more qualified teachers, pay them more and provide new technology and facilities to underperforming school systems.

—Thomas Shattuck is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Science. He can be reached at thomas.w.shattuck@vanderbilt.edu.