By Veronica Vargas Stidvent

Last Thursday Ryan Bounds' nomination to the 9th Circuit of Court of Appeals was withdrawn. The main issue raised was the nominee's stance against multicultural divisions at Stanford University in the 1990s. In tarring Bounds as a racist, Oregon's senators - and others - showed just how wrong they can be.

On college campuses in the 1990s, debate raged about the use of affirmative action and how best to create inclusive, accessible campuses for all. Lines were often drawn between those who believed in "color-blindness" as the best way to get past racial and ethnic divisions and those who championed multicultural or race-conscious methods to achieve diversity. Although multiculturalism eventually won the day, this was a legitimate debate among well-intentioned people trying to achieve the same goals.

As a right-of-center Latina student, I heard the epithet "coconut" more than a few times. In his college writings, Bounds lamented the use of such terms to disparage students of color who did not think according to preconceived notions. He also criticized pigeonholing minority students and separating students by race or ethnicity. I recall visiting the Stanford campus as a prospective freshman and feeling uncomfortable being assigned to "Casa Zapata," the "theme house" for Hispanic students. Later, as a prospective law student, I was once again disappointed when the university offered to pay for me to visit -- as long as I visited during minority student weekend. So I understood when Bounds apologized for his rhetoric, but not for his argument that universities should strive for inclusion rather than separation of students by color.

Taken in context, Mr. Bounds' college writings were appropriate for the time period and his age. My former classmate David Lat has written about the dangers -- including the chilling effect on students -- of considering a nominee's writings from their college years. Bounds' writings advanced an ongoing debate in the style of a student writer aiming to invite challenge from the opposing side. (Indeed, my own nomination was almost derailed by a college op-ed mocking a speech by President Clinton.)

As lawyers, we learn that an inflammatory style so often used in opinion pieces is not the most persuasive or effective in court. A more accurate measure of Bounds would be a review of his professional record.

I have known Bounds for more than 20 years. Like most of our exuberant classmates, we learned from each other, and our ideas have matured with age and experience. In his personal and professional life, Bounds has worked to extend opportunities to students and lawyers from underrepresented communities. He is a serious lawyer and a person with genuine intellectual curiosity. He is by no means a racist. In a time when there is so much to decry, it is a tragedy for the Senate to choose instead to wrongly label this man.

In the aftermath of his failed nomination, my phone lit up with texts from Bounds' shocked friends. The irony was not lost on me as a Jewish Democrat, a gay Asian, a Hispanic woman, and a black Republican wondered what to do next. Our friendship and deep concern overrode any differences one might note among us. It exemplified the very ideal Ryan Bounds had espoused.

Veronica Vargas Stidvent served as assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Labor. She is the principal of Stidvent Partners based in Austin, Texas.