The Future

As this blog comes to a close, we must realize that the problems discussed in these Civic issue blogs are not going to magically solve themselves over night. Yet if these problems still exist in the distant future at the same capacity they do today, our society will have failed at improving.

This holds especially true for affirmative action. The most often provided reasons for affirmative action are to make up for the wrongs of the past and to promote diversity in schools. If one hundred years from now, society still has to make up for the enslavement of a people, I don’t know when it will ever stop being a reason. As far as achieving diversity, there are numerous ways at achieving this without having to resort to affirmative action.

In the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, the Supreme Court concluded their opinion by stating, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest [of diversity] approved today.”

Will affirmative action be a thing of the past when we reach that prophesized limit in 2028? No one really knows for sure. However, certain schools have already banned the use of race in admission processes and other schools are looking into alternatives.

The previous post discussed some of the potential solutions to the issue. With that post, I took a more hypothetical approach. I focused on linking certain factors that would result in lower academic performance and therefore should be used for preferential treatment in the admissions process.

This post, however, will be looking at what ways to promote diversity schools are currently using.

There is, without a doubt, many schools that utilize affirmative action and race based admission processes. These schools on average show a higher rate of diversity, specifically African Americans and Latinos, which is to be expected, as their policies promote it. Most of these schools strongly protest the idea that affirmative action should be removed or banned.  

On the other hand, some schools have already banned affirmative action and race based admission processes. While some schools saw an immediate decrease in diversity, the diversity eventually rebounded due to the implementation of new programs.

Most opponents of removing affirmative action forget to consider what the school is thinking. Schools have admitted that diverse student populations provide a better learning environment. When a school bans affirmative action, it won’t stop trying to maintain its diversity.

By 2014, Michigan, California, Texas, Florida, Washington, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma have all banned affirmative action. The typical phrasing of the ban states that preferential treatment or discrimination in public employment and education is prohibited.

Out of these states, California, Florida, and Texas passed legislation almost immediately that served to increase diversity. These schools used class rank as a method to properly represent the population. The top percentages (4 up to 9 in California, 20 in Florida, 10 in Texas) of a graduating class are given guaranteed admission to the State education system. This method balances out discontinuities created by varying school districts. It works on the principle that a student ranked 100 in a school with a standardized test score of 1900 is not particularly better than a student ranked 1 with a score of 1850. This provides boosts to students who put forth effort in high school, yet reside in an area with a struggling school district.

Outside of preferential treatment in general, certain schools have put forth more effort into providing financial aid and working with 2 and 2 programs. Additionally, some schools are looking at getting rid of legacy preferences which have predominantly benefited the white upper class. According to an article in The Atlantic, the achievement gap between high-income and low-income students is significantly higher than the black and white student gap.

I would like to conclude this blog with my final opinion on affirmative action. I can’t truthfully tell you if I’ve been affected by affirmative action in a positive or negative way. I am technically of a minority group (Asian American), but that group is infrequently talked about in discussions about affirmative action. In my honest opinion, affirmative action may work now and in the near future as a way to help those in need, but I believe that eventually the barriers to higher education should be torn down for students of all backgrounds, rendering affirmative action obsolete.

A Solution

Who applies for college?

Well for starters, those who can afford it.

Financial standings is a strong factor in determining if a student will enroll in college. According to a report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), only 50 % of those from a low income family enrolled in college compared to 80% of those from high income families.

And this makes sense. Poor families often live in neighborhoods with substandard education systems. The lack in funding for these schools often result in the education provided failing to prepare students for employment, much less college.

According to an article by the NCES, children living in poverty have in general lower academic performance and increased rates of drop outs. A graph shown in the article displays that out of all ethnic groups, those from a black background are more likely to be impoverished.

Graph from the NCES (link above)

There is no doubt that background has a strong influence on who applies and attends college. Affirmative action takes into consideration some of these aspects but it is by no means a perfect system. The National Conference of State Legislatures looks at some these pros and cons in their article on affirmative action.

  

When it comes to proposing a potential solution to the issue, the true root of the problem must be found. Only then can the problem truly be handled and fully resolved.

Affirmative action looks to create equal opportunities for those of minority to excel in the education system. As a result of the current affirmative action policies, people of ethnic minorities and women have benefited.

While college admission offices reportedly contain biases which help determine those admitted, perhaps there exists a deeper reason to the existing demographics of higher education.

High school is an important part of the education system where students finish their basic education and look towards the future. From there, many will go straight to the workforce while some may continue to higher education.

The problem with using current demographics of higher education to determine the fairness of the admission process is that it often does not show the applicant pool. In reality, certain schools are predominately white because majority of the applicants are white. Say a school accepts 100 students a year. If 300 white students and 100 students from minority backgrounds apply and equal amounts of each are accepted, the school will have admitted 75 white students and 25 of minority background. While the number of accepted minority students is lower than accepted white students, the admissions process were completely fair; the applicant pool is what created the outcome. A good example of this would be in the Asian American community. As a part of that culture, education is highly stressed resulting in extremely high application rates and enrollment.

The ultimate goal that should be pursued in order to level the playing field is to increase the readiness of students going into college. Focus needs to be placed on those most at a disadvantage, which in this case is those struggling financially.

Naturally, the change can not be made dramatically. There is an undeniable history of discrimination against those of minority. But as society progresses, we are (hopefully) moving away from the unfair practices and treatments of the past. Once we have built ourselves out of the abyss of discrimination, the practice will not fully level the playing field. US News looks at using poverty preference to balance the demographics of admissions. While this tackles the problem from a different angle, it provides different results. In California schools that banned affirmative action, such policies helped increase the minority enrollment rate.

But in the end, we should be striving for a world where preference does not need to be given to anyone.

The Problems

Imagine this: you are a high schooler applying to college. You are just as qualified as every other candidate, perhaps even more so. But some of the other applicants have an advantage over you. They happen to be of a minority race.

This scenario is the most cited when it comes to complaints against affirmative action.

I have found that amongst the opponents of affirmative action the major points are that it treats people unfairly and that merit should be the main determining point.

Major opposition to affirmative action can be seen in the viewpoint of colorblindness. They claim that only when race is not considered at all can racism be truly overcome. This viewpoint has some valid points. After all, the more something is thought about, the easier it comes to mind.

An article in the Stanford Alumni magazine looks at some of the issues of affirmative action by examining Stanford’s admission practices. Stanford has been factoring in race when it comes to admissions, hiring, and tenure.  The Hoover Institution, a think tank based at the university, found that racial preferences help minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, but hurt poor white applicants and Asians. They suggest that if affirmative action seeks to fix disadvantages, preferences should be given to those that are disadvantaged, not solely those of particular races. I’ll be looking into this solution more next post.

The article continues to argue against the idea that it brings diversity. They say,

“But if "diversity" were really the goal, then preferences would be given on the basis of unusual characteristics, not on the basis of race. The underlying assumption -- that only minorities can add certain ideas or perspectives -- is offensive not merely because it is untrue but also because it implies that all minorities think a certain way.”

And to conclude the article states that when people speak out against using race to skew admissions, they are accused of the racism that justifies the program creating a vicious circle of accusations.

Another major viewpoint is that merit should be the key determining factor when it comes to admission into college. I may be biased coming from a family that truly values hard work (my mother and her family came to America with close to nothing and are now running a very successful garden center), but I see no reason why two applicants of the same merit should be treated differently, regardless of race or gender.

Regardless of the intent of affirmative action, there may be problems with those admitted by such programs.

Recently, researchers are studying a theory known as “mismatch.” The first major report done on the subject was by Richard H. Sander of U.C.L.A. School of Law. Based on students at the college, he concluded that “a student who gains special admission to a more elite school on partly nonacademic grounds is likely to struggle more.” This idea ties in nicely with merit; in order to succeed, you must prove that you are capable.

In the Supreme Court discussion of the University of Texas affirmative action case, the justices have noted some of the problems with the program. Late Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged the implications of mismatch. Chief Justice John Roberts points out that in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, affirmative action was given a suggested end date in 25 years.

This ties into the idea that “compensation for past wrongs” may no longer be a valid reason to continue affirmative action. The program was initially established when discrimination was wide spread and for the most part, socially acceptable. The circumstances have changed since then as discrimination has become widely unacceptable. Furthermore, the students from minority backgrounds that are applying to colleges today have never experienced the full force of past discrimination. Some ask, “What are we compensating them for?”

 

The best way to view this is through an example. Say someone rear ended my car in a parking lot. It is only natural that I expect that person to pay for some of the damages. But it is completely unreasonable for me to ask them to pay for issues that my new car experiences.

While the current effectiveness of affirmative action may be disputed, the idea behind the concept isn't too far off. Next post I will be looking at possible changes that can be made.

Note: I feel that more often than not, issues regarding race seem to be touchy subjects. I will be responding to comments, so feel free to leave any questions or have a discussion.

The Benefits

When affirmative action was first implemented, the system was intended to make up for a history of oppression. While slavery ended before the 20^th century, major effects of discrimination were seen far into the 1960’s and even now some effects are still seen. Affirmative action was established first in industry in an attempt to force employers to cease discriminatory hiring practices. As the years went by, affirmative action began to apply to more things and include more people. The modern affirmative action affects hiring practices in many industries and acceptance policies in higher education. It now applies to a larger range of people including various racial groups, people with disabilities, and women. This practice was intended to level the playing field for those at a disadvantage from past discrimination.

The very beginning of affirmative action used rigid quotas in order to better represent the actual demographics. This led to some odd practices such as busing which would take children to an out of district school to fulfill an interracial balance. While the practice was odd, the method of achieving diversity was accepted on the ground that it made up for the past. These quotas were deemed unfair by Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and a new system came into place.

The modern affirmative action gives a slight advantage to those from a way of life that has suffered oppression/discrimination in the past. The process allows schools to actively reach out to those of minorities and urge them to apply. Additionally, financial aid and other programs may be offered to support those of underrepresented groups. These tactics have significantly increased applications from minority groups and, consequently, enrollment.

Positive effects of affirmative action include a more inclusive environment in education. By giving students of a minority background a little slack in the admission process, students disadvantaged from past accommodations are able to qualify for more schools. 

Statistics show a decrease of minority groups enrolled in schools across various states following respective bans on affirmative action. The difference is significant in states that have a larger minority population. According to a 2013 University of Washington study, following bans of affirmative action in colleges, chance of enrollment for minorities dropped by 23% compared to 1% of those not of a minority.

Image courtesy of FiveThirtyEight

While it may not match the title of the blog, affirmative action also helped women achieve more. Similar to racial discrimination, gender discrimination held back women from obtaining the same level of education and employment as men. Affirmative action policies help to redefine the opportunities women have in the world. In education, it is predominantly used to allow women into fields of study from which they were once discouraged from pursuing such as engineering, medicine, and law. Statistics for women employment show that female employment by federal contractors rose by 15.2%.

Affirmative action strives to create equal opportunity for all. While originally created for ensuring African Americans were represented in the work force, affirmative action quickly spread to include others. Today, affirmative action is reaching out to those in poverty and giving those from less fortunate backgrounds greater opportunity to improve their current conditions.

Regardless of the process behind it, affirmative action helps create a more diverse learning environment in schools. The inclusion of minorities creates a diverse cultural and social learning environment. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of University of Michigan to allow the consideration of race in admission process to "achieve a diverse student body."

There is no doubt that affirmative action has helped move America away from the discrimination of the past. It has assisted those of minorities out of past oppression. This process gave the struggling minority community a foot hold out of the ditch discrimination left it in.

With each new generation, America is moving further away from the wrongdoings of the past. A question being asked is “How appropriate is affirmative action now?” The next blog will go into further detail on the drawbacks and trade-offs of affirmative action.

A History

Affirmative action in education has become a highly debated topic recently. Affirmative action was started as a way to compensate for the discrimination of minorities in education and employment. The idea behind it was that even if minority groups have equal rights, past discrimination has given them a disadvantage in preparedness for future opportunities.

Let’s start by taking a look at the history of affirmative action.

In 1865, African Americans were officially freed from the bonds of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment; however their treatment would remain unequal for nearly a century after that.

In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower began a trend of executive orders and acts that prohibited discrimination in federal employment.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy coined the phrase affirmative action in an executive order that stated that government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure applicants are employed… without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” Although the phrase was used in regards to government hired contractors, such a statement summarized the general idea behind the order.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and another executive order which effectively banned discrimination of any sort (race, sex, religion, etc.) in employment and publics services. He is quoted with saying, “You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair.”

In 1971, the US Department of Labor issued guidelines that attempted to properly represent minorities in the work force, especially in government-sponsored programs.

And that brings us to the current status of affirmative action. It finds itself applied to education and businesses across the nation often seen under the term “equal opportunity establishment.”

Some of these organizations, especially schools, created a quota to fill when it came to accepting minority applicants. During the early years of affirmative action, this managed to get by under the idea of compensating for past injustices. However in 1978 in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a white student sued the school claiming the quotas prevented more qualified students from obtaining admission. The court found that using race as an admission factor was acceptable and this convention was held until 2003. That year, the Supreme Court found that affirmative action could no longer be justified as compensation for the injustices of the past, but could still exist for schools to maintain diversity.

People, often of the majority, find issues with affirmative action as it treats minorities with special care only because they are of a minority. In a way, such a program is a form of reverse discrimination. These supporters believe that an applicant should be considered based on their merits alone.

In light of this opinion, several states have banned affirmative action to promote the equal treatment of all. As of 2008, these states include California, Michigan, Washington, and Nebraska.