Holding the idea of a diverse student body as a noble end to be sought by college admissions boards, the Michigan case presently compels America to critically reexamine the notion of Affirmative Action, its methods, effects, and goals. In arguing against the Michigan method of achieving a student body that is composed of distinct or unlike elements or qualities, the President argues that the process discriminates "solely on the basis of race", and is therefore unjust and unconstitutional. Although the method does distinguish between prospective candidates by employing race or ethnicity as a factor in the selection process, it does not base its selection "solely on the basis of race". Since the selection does not occur to the exclusion of all other factors other than race, the President cannot logically argue that the students were admitted "solely on the basis of race". Believe it or not, it may be argued that the difference in treatment or favor given on the basis of ethnicity is grounded on an idea of merit. As I see it, those minority groups that were held back by years of oppressive admissions policies are deserving of modern policies that help them to receive their proper portion of higher education. Although many may view this as assigning a proportional part or share of college seats to minority students, the Michigan method neither establishes a fixed quota nor does it insure the academic success of a minority student upon admission. The method simply allows access to institutions which were previously inaccessible to minority students. In addition, where in the United States Constitution does it state that a state school may not adopt a selection process that employs ethnicity as a selection factor? If it does not, then what clause does the Michigan method violate? Surly, factoring in a student's parentage, or athleticism exhibits a preference, but are these factors viewed as unconstitutional?