WELLESLEY, Mass., June 26 (AScribe Newswire) -- Reporters scrambled to read the opinion and translate it for the public. The legal pundits were called in for explanations. Admissions offices huddled to determine what the impact will be in selecting the Class of 2007.

We anxiously waited for the high priests on the Supreme Court to enlighten us. Now they have spoken. They have told us, in multiple voices, what they think about whether consideration of race in admissions violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Why do we passively hold our breaths for the pronouncements of nine people, who, while certainly thoughtful and serious, have limited experiences and no special divine insight? Why should we willingly defer to their vision of what equality should mean in our society?

The Court's past record on the equality issue might give us reason for pause. It took them more than 80 years to figure out that the lynching-backed system of violent oppression known as segregation violated the equal protection clause. They waited for more than 100 years to recognize that principles of equality should include women. In 1944, they told us that national security concerns were more important than equality when our fellow citizens were interned simply because of their ancestry.

What would happen if we Americans said to the Supreme Court, "Thank you for your thoughtful reflections, but this looks like an issue that is important enough for us to try and work through ourselves?" Yes, we might actually need to have difficult conversations about the role of race and the meaning of equality in our society. We might have to acknowledge that the reason academic institutions employ affirmative action is because of a persistent racial achievement gap that is only explainable as a continued reminder that we have not arrived in terms of creating equality across racial lines.

If we had such a conversation, might we recognize that admission to colleges and professional schools is always about equality of opportunity rather than equality of result? Diplomas are not given upon admittance. The degrees earned by students represent what they individually made of the educational opportunity offered.

Would we actually have to talk about whether our society's effort to equalize opportunities ever justifies some cost to individuals? For the plaintiffs in the University of Michigan case, eliminating affirmative action for underrepresented minorities will only affected their chances for admission by about 1 percent. And when they accurately respond that their chances of admission would be much greater if they were black, we can ask them, "Well, would you trade? Would you be willing to live what it means to be black in our society in order to obtain those increased chances?"

Until white people can honestly answer yes to this question, then we have more work to do if we hope to achieve real equality. No matter what the Supreme Court says, it cannot do that work for us.

- Lori Johnson teaches in the Department of Political Science at Wellesley College.