Definition of Affirmative Action

What is Affirmative Action?

The general view of minority representation in the American higher education system has historically appeared quite bleak. The racial diversification of America’s higher education system has been a forefront discussion among those in the industry since the creation of higher education itself. There have been monumental Supreme Court decisions that allowed the argument in favor of renovating the study body population to gain momentum and ultimately helped to dismantle America’s longstanding “separate but equal” doctrine, a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified and legalized systems of segregation (as noted by Plessy v.

Ferguson, 1896). These decisions eventually gave rise to instrumental rulings that began implementation of affirmative action policies in higher education and later challenged the constitutionality of those very same policies. Many court challenges have occurred; any and all contemporary notions of diversity are exemplified through affirmative action policies in the higher education climate known today.

Although many states have used affirmative action to diversify their college and university campuses, these policies continue to be attacked and in some cases, ultimately prohibited. Many higher education institutions are ceasing the use of race-sensitive admission practices. The concept of affirmative action has been consistently attacked in the legal arena and faces an uncertain future, causing many institutions to abandon the use of this policy out of fear of litigation. However, growing the racial diversification of higher education institutions through affirmative action is particularly important for colleges in our society.

The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a diverse student body is critical to the educational objectives of colleges and universities across the nation (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The purpose of colleges and universities is to ensure that their students are prepared to engage, work, and live in a global society once they finish their time at their respective institutions. This preparation requires understanding and accountability for what may be new or unfamiliar. Affirmative action programs are crucial to achieving that goal. In fact, some programs that implement affirmative action have reported seeing the number of minority applications to colleges or universities double, or even triple (National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, 2014). Diversity in higher education not only provides an educational gain for racially and ethnically diverse students, but also for all students, both personally and intellectually. While there has been some higher education research supporting affirmative action (Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, & Teranishi, 2001; Allen et al., 2000; Bowen & Bok, 1998; Long, 2003), far less literature approaches support for these concepts through a legal lens in this decade, particularly since the most recent challenges to such needed policies.

The Advantages of Affirmative Action

Supporters of affirmative action argue that the policy ensures diversity in the higher education landscape. It develops tolerance while simultaneously promoting exposure to various cultures. Although some may say that artificially encouraging diversity doesn’t follow societal norms, in most instances, humanity is better when we can learn from our differences instead of becoming comfortable in sameness. It helps level the playing field, as many groups were discriminated against and started late in the race to development in a country that boasts of being a “land of opportunity” for all of its inhabitants. Decades of research in higher education show that classmates of the direct beneficiaries of affirmative action also benefit from the implementation of the policy. These students have more positive racial attitudes toward racial minorities, they report greater cognitive capacities, and they even seem to participate more civically when they leave college. Affirmative action activists say the policy has helped remove racial stereotypes by providing opportunities to disadvantaged groups to prove their abilities.

Concerns with Affirmative Action

Opponents of affirmative action argue that it is unfair to bestow an advantage to students because of the color of their skin rather than the challenges they have faced. Affirmative action in universities often results in lower graduation rates, lower academic satisfaction, and lower income for the intended beneficiaries due to a “mismatch” between the abilities of the students and the requirements of the university courses they attend. Underqualified beneficiaries of affirmative action, such as minority students or legacy candidates (children of university alumni), who have been accepted to prestigious colleges, may find themselves out of their depth among their better-prepared counterparts. Moreover, critics of the policy find it egregiously unfair when the policy aids students who probably do not need it. A Telegraph report refers to a study in the 1990s that found that 86 percent of African Americans on selective campuses were upper or middle-class students. Some critics argue that affirmative action amounts to reverse discrimination. Horace Cooper, a lawyer and writer, says, “You do not solve the problem of race with race.” He suggests that it would be more beneficial to adequately prepare members of disadvantaged groups so that they can compete for college seats and jobs on equal terms with others.

A Case Study

Without affirmative action, the population of African-American and Hispanic students going to universities in the United States would plummet. According to a group of Princeton University researchers, their places would be taken by Asian, not white, applicants. Although affirmative action to award places to black students has been gradually eroded by legal challenges, American universities are still entitled to consider race as one factor, alongside SAT test scores, when making admissions decisions.

After examining more than 124,000 applicants to elite universities, Thomas J. Espenshade and Chang Y. Chung concluded that ignoring race in admissions would result in dramatic declines in the numbers of African-Americans and Hispanics. The study compared elite university applicants’ SAT scores, race, sex, citizenship, athletic ability, and legacy, with their admission decision. According to the study, the acceptance rates for African-American candidates would fall from 33.7% to 12.2%, a decline of almost two-thirds. Simultaneously, the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants would almost halve, from 26.8% to 12.9%. The researchers argued that the effect would stretch over a longer period and could be even greater because students in these categories might be deterred from applying at all. “If admitting such small numbers of qualified African-American and Hispanic students reduced applications and yield from minority candidates in subsequent years, the effect of eliminating affirmative action at elite universities on the racial and ethnic composition of enrolled students would be magnified beyond the results presented here,” the authors wrote. Removing consideration of race would have little effect on white students – their acceptance rate would rise by only 0.5 percentage points. Conversely, Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students (MacLeod, 2005).

Further Action

Higher education institutions should apply non-affirmative action strategies that intentionally attract a diverse group of students. For example, institutions can make a diverse student body a priority through their strategic plan (Kaplin & Lee, 2007). Setting recruitment and retention goals that demonstrate institutional commitment to diversity has the potential to effect a trickle-down effect and university-wide buy-in, as most offices take direction from the institution’s mission and strategic plan. This also ensures that diversity is not the burden of one or two areas within the institution, but the responsibility of the entire university community as a whole. If alternative options such as this are not successful, then the institution certainly has a case for implementing affirmative action. Colleges and universities might consider recruiting in non-traditional areas that have large numbers of the policy’s targeted population(s), such as rural areas. More often than not, college recruiters do not visit or bypass schools in rural areas, and many students who live in those unengaged areas are left with limited options regarding college attendance or even not attending college at all (Rendón & Hope, 1996).

A second course of action involves institutions employing continuous and conscious efforts to engage with current racially underrepresented students and alumni to help identify and recruit racially underrepresented prospective applicants. Higher education administrators must acknowledge that each student who comes to their institution likely has a network of other students who may be of similar racial backgrounds and who may be qualified for admission. Further, students who have demonstrated success in college have a significant understanding of the skills and competencies needed for achievement in college; therefore, leveraging current students and alumni knowledge of prospective racially underrepresented students, who are qualified and have the aptitude necessary for collegiate success, can serve as an effective and efficient marketing tool for colleges in achieving peak diversity within their student populations.

References

1. Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teranishi, R. (2001). Stony the road we trod. The Black struggle for higher education in California. (Unpublished research report).
2. Allen, W., Teranishi, R., Dinwiddie, G. & Gonzalez, G. (2000). Knocking at freedom’s door: Race, equity and affirmative action in U.S. higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 69, 3-11.
3. Bowen, W. G & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Boykin, T. F., & Palmer, R. T. (2016). Examining the paradox between dismantling de jure segregation and affirmative action: Implications from contemporary higher education case law. The Journal of Negro Education, 85(2), 114-128. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1841955974?accountid=10901
5. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).
6. Kaplin, W., & Lee, B. (2007). The law of higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7. Long, B. T. (2003). Diversity by any other name: Are there viable alternatives to affirmative action in higher education? Western Journal of Black Studies, 27, 30-34.
8. MacLeod, D. (2005, June 07). Research shows benefits of affirmative action. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/jun/07/highereducation.uk1
9. National Conference of States Legislatures. (2014). Affirmative action: Overview. Retrieved at http ://www. ncsl. org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview. Aspx
10. Rend?n, L., & Hope, R. (1996). Educating a new majority. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Did you like this example?

542

29