College diversity still necessary: Our view

• Michigan voters banned considering race or gender for college admissions
• But preferences are fine for children of alumni or big donors%2C so where%27s the equity%3F
• Colleges are right to want dynamic groups of students.

Ever since President Kennedy first used the term "affirmative action" in a 1961 executive order, it has been a pivotal — and controversial — tool for opening long-stuck doors in higher education and the workplace for African Americans and later women, Latinos and other minorities.

A half-century later, polls show two-thirds of Americans opposed to racial or ethnic preferences in college admissions. Ten states have banned or largely stopped using such preferences to decide who gets into state universities. And the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education hangs by a thread at the Supreme Court.

In June, the court opened the door to end preferences unless backers can show there's no race-neutral way to achieve the same goals. This week, the court heard arguments in a challenge to Michigan citizens' 2006 decision to end affirmative action in public universities there. Handicappers widely expect the justices to uphold the Michigan ban.

The trend is troubling because creating diverse student bodies remains important. Students from different backgrounds learn from each other and form the views of society they'll carry with them long after they graduate. Affirmative action, used properly, helps attain that goal by giving a small edge to minorities whose test scores may be lower because of the effects of poverty or cultural differences.

Those who say they prefer purely merit-based college admissions ignore the fact that no such thing exists. Colleges routinely look past grade-point averages and test scores to make room for academically challenged athletes, as well as the offspring of alumni and wealthy donors. By any measure other than football scores or the numbers written on checks, diversity is a higher value, but somehow, it's only those preferences that wind up in court.

The result is clear: When minority preferences are banned and little takes their place, minority enrollment declines. Black student enrollment at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor fell from 6.6% in 2006, the year of the voter initiative, to 4.4% in 2011.

If remaining affirmative action programs are outlawed, either by voters or the courts, it will be up to states to find non-traditional, race-neutral ways to achieve roughly the same goals.

Some are already doing so.

Texas has filled many of the slots in its colleges by automatically offering admission to the top 10% of graduates from state high schools. States have also traded racial preferences for socioeconomic ones that sweep in lower-income students who tend to be disproportionately minority.

In some ways, roundabout methods like these are fairer. Giving a boost to lower-income students helps all races, while avoiding unnecessary help to well-off applicants simply because they're minorities. But the notion that any of this is completely "fair" is naive. Making choices is always going to disadvantage someone.

The reality is that the era of racial preferences is ending, probably well before the 25 years Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in 2003 might still be necessary. Colleges are right to want dynamic groups of students who can broaden each other's outlooks, and fortunately there's more than one way for them to get there.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.