College, I pray, is the only place where someone like myself could fall into a conversation that easily descends into ragged debate about whether or not "black people can be racist." I was a junior, I believe, still dining in Shaw Hall. Yumiko mentioned Lauryn Hill and the scuttlebutt about Hill keeping her son Zion quarantined from "whites," to preserve his "heritage." Now, from all accounts, this story is false; and I've read of at least one more damaging rumor about Hill's phantom racism that is untrue. We can feel comfortable, then, in the knowledge that little Zion will befriend all children.

The authenticity of the claim Yumiko cited was nonetheless irrelevant, for no sooner had I declared that sort of behavior, engaged in by anyone, is patently racist, I was beset on all sides by those around me, vehement in their assertion that "black people cannot be racist because 'racism' involves power."

Ridiculous from conception is that idea. All aspects of life - from the simple to the world-altering - involve exchanges of leverage, advantage or vulnerability. One need not carry most seats in government to apply their power in a given situation; what of the man or child rejected from a friendship or other human connection because of their heritage? More than once, work has taken the staff out to lunch; one of my coworkers is of African descent and on two occasions in the two vastly different locales of Medina and Superior Avenue in Cleveland, an African man - neither knew my coworker from Adam - caught his attention and greeted him, and only him. Solidarity, perhaps, but then why, to these strangers, would skin color stand as a prerequisite for an unquestionable potential for bonding? Is "black culture" so embedded that other Americans simply will not suffice? The preference was grossly apparent on Superior, while leaving a hole-in-the-wall diner; after acknowledging my coworker, who turned and stepped through the door, the burly fellow was left to regard me, quite un-African. The man stared; he may have glared. But, suddenly silent, he certainly did not wish me a good day, too.

Needless to say, I would have been pleased to have received the same accommodation. What man extends greeting to one stranger but not the other - who is not of his physical league, so to speak - unless he's a bigot? Bereft of the kind gesture, I felt diminished; hurt. If racism is too strong a word, prejudice will fit the event quite snugly.

No, racism isn't too strong a word.

Now, these United States have worked through forty years of tumult after one hundred more of hypcritical oppression. Men with dark skin, the sons of slaves from Africa, were separated from their rights granted in the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Only since the 1960s have these American citizens been able to practically enjoy their freedoms as protected by the Constitution; and truly, forty years is instantaneous to the eyes of culture and generations. Certainly the healing has only begun with cultural reception to and legislative enaction of civil rights, and it is human nature to hold a grudge while the pain of servitude and bondage still sting.

Another mark of the living is guilt. Guilt is easily exploited by both the disingenuous and the ignorant. Affirmative Action, like Social Security, was a stopgap designed to wedge itself into a societal obstacle; the latter, mass financial insecurity and the former, baldfaced discrimination. From the moment a stopgap is instituted, the question is raised: how long must these law remain in place? When will the problem have been solved to satisfaction; when will the law itself cause more difficulties than it allays? Social Security is another topic for another day - though it can be verily argued that the system is overgrown and, in the face of an burgeoning investor class, obsolete. If you've seen the likes of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Sidney Poitier, Tiger Woods and others, you've seen the demise of institutionalized racism against those with dark skin.

Still active, however, are the regimen designed to directly counteract an assumed prejudice or inequality, from Disadvantaged Business Enterprises -where a business managed by a minority receives preferential work opportunity because firms are required to hire services from this designation - to college qualification - typified best by University of Michigan, which is facing Supreme Court review for its policy of awarding blanket preference to African and Hispanic students.

Guilt and racism collide in the face of these institutions, whose sociological adversaries are gone, having died with a past age. Unfairness, for whatever purpose, is anathema to free societies - and unfairness is exactly what these anachronistic legacies are left to commit. What of the "Disadvantaged Business" that claims over $1 million in revenue every year, yet still receiving all the benefits that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise offers? Racism in the workplace is no longer tacit and to continue to believe in the spectre without verifying is folly. Nothing much separates a shaky startup company managed by a man with light skin than one managed by a man with dark skin. Why insult the minority entrepreneur by assuming his inability to build a business in the same legal and contractual world as anyone else, but for the prejudice and condescension of a liberal, tenderly careless sort?

The same dilemma has been visited by the University of Michigan's presumptuous admissions criterion. Of course, many argue that the children of alumni or standout students from notable, far flung points on the globe or athletes, particularly those in the sports of football and basketball, receive preference. If those traditions continue, we're told, higher education is still discriminating. This is a clever emotional ploy, short on logic and easily cast down: every one of those students of greater value to higher education actually are children of alumni or standout students from notable, far flung points on the globe or athletes, particularly those in the sports of football and basketball. Poor or middle-class students who receive financial aid (the latter such as myself) are given it far above students from affluency (the family of a fellow I knew in school paid in full, non-negotiable). But those given financial aid are in need of it; those who are not - are not. The university discovers this through application, as it does a students talents and potentials to offer the school. Legacy student equals legacy student; quarterback equals quarterback. People in these categories is taken for what they are: more valuable for a variety of reasons. For us to challenge this is to challenge a business who is, at any given moment, hiring civil engineers - and have no need of environmental engineers. We can't challenge that, nor should we.

Applying greater value to someone - twenty points on a 100-point scale - because he is "black" cannot be considered a designation at the same level of "athlete" or "legacy." The logic of athlete is athlete or poor student is underadvantaged falls flat with black is underadvantaged or Hispanic is underadvantaged. It's just not the case. Europeans can be needy and poorly educated; just drive down to Appalachia. So too disadvantaged can be Asians; so can be every world representative that claims citizenry in the United States. Africans are affluent - no, not in as great numbers as the rest of America. But is that worth pushing aside the profile and accomplishment of those Africans who are well-off? Rather than whether a student is one who has achieved in scholastics or art or sports, or whether he qualifies for entry but cannot afford enrollment, institutions like the University of Michigan assume the worst: again, a face of the soft bigotry from the world of business. And prejudice affects others, possibly denying the financially needy non-African and non-Hispanic who may be overlooked by way of their skin color. Is this the key to a self-sufficient, colorblind America?

That Italians and Irish once feuded bloodily is laughable to the point of the unthinkable; today, legend holds that they make for each other the finest of mates. No one singles out a "German" or a "Pole" or a "Czech," either, unless immersed in a cultural festival where the aforementioned are sure to be abundant. For better or worse, we are combined into a European "white," detrimental today as it conflicts with an equally insoluble "black" or one of any other colors to assign prearranged attributes to the innocent and unique. Racial preferences and quotas rob the talents of individuals for a false idol of identity through race. They need to be brought to an end, for another great cultural legend is that of the Melting Pot. Instead of colors, the "whiteness" or "blackness," we'd be left with "oneness." A man whose birthday we celebrate this month dedicated far more memorable words for this vision:

I look forward confidently to the day when all who work for a living will be one with no thought to their separateness as Negroes, Jews, Italians or any other distinctions. This will be the day when we bring into full realization the American dream - a dream yet unfulfilled. A dream of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men will not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character; a dream of a nation where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone, but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of the human personality.