Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action has been a key topic of discussion for universities, state governments, and the federal government. Because of its ambiguousness with the Constitution, people across the political and social spectrum have remained divided in opinion. Affirmative action shall be defined, for the purposes of this essay, as a policy or program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity in education for minorities. While it is difficult to postulate an argument that is clearly better or more legitimate in opposition or support of affirmative action in universities, instead I will dissect the issue starting from a lesser studied (in the academic community) group in discussion of this topic: Asians; then African Americans and Hispanics; and Whites. My hypothesis is that affirmative action adversely affects Asians while it assists African Americans and Hispanics in their desire for higher education. The Asian student population is the fastest growing of any group, minority or majority, with or without affirmative action. Without affirmative action in some states, other groups such as African Americans and Hispanics have seen sharp declines in their percentages in university systems. This paper will also try to show the effects on the previously mentioned cohorts from affirmative action as they are the largest groups with the most data available, and how groups affect each other.
The role of government has played a large role in helping academics to understand the effects of ending affirmative action and what it has done during its tenure. A majority of the elite private colleges and universities receive federal funding for certain programs or for areas of federal interest. Also, because they receive funding, they fall under the umbrella of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring discrimination by federally funded colleges. The past 60 years has been very progressive. This has made it difficult to analyze pure data and the differences of university admissions from before affirmative action policies were implemented to currently implemented policies without taking the nature of the times in to account. Now, we can better understand how non-affirmative action college and post-undergraduate admissions differ from affirmative action policies that were in place. For example, in 1996 California adopted Proposition 209, which banned state-sponsored affirmative action in admissions, contracting, and employment. In Texas and Michigan, there were similar measures to Proposition 209 of California, banning race-conscious admissions in their public universities. Because of these, we can review differences in trends and how affirmative action or its removal both hurts and helps the four major groups in college admissions.
[Line Graph goes here]
At the University of California at Berkeley for 2005-2006, the ethnic breakdown consists of 40% Asian or Pacific Islander, 31% White, 11% Hispanic, 10% unknown, 4% Black, 3% non-resident aliens, and 1% Native American or Alaskan (UC Berkeley 2007). In 1997, right before Proposition 209 was enacted, “the proportion of black freshmen matched the state population, 7 percent” and in 2007 the proportion is just 3.6% for black freshmen (Egan 2007). Data from that year was unavailable for other ethnicities. Two years later, from 1999-2000, it dropped to 5% African Americans at Berkeley overall and to 4% six years later. As one can notice from the line graph above, fluctuations in enrollment over the seven-year span have been very minor. Since 1999, Asian enrollment has increased by roughly 800 people, gaining only one percent. Hispanic enrollment has also increased only 1% since 1999, but according to the trend of its fellow minority group, the African Americans, I would assume Hispanic enrollment to have decreased initially from Proposition 209 as well. It is difficult to tell if in ensuing years, Hispanic disenrollment becomes noticeable in UC Berkeley and other U.C. schools. “Under-represented minorities, including Latinos, make up only 19 percent of UC’s freshman class, but 46 percent of the state’s high school graduating class” (San Francisco Chronicle, 2006). This downward trend for African Americans is apparent, and shows how much affirmative action has helped them in attending UC Berkeley.
[Bar Graph goes here]
The University of California (UC) enacted a system where the top 4% of every high school would be guaranteed admission in to UC, but that in itself is a feat for students. The people that usually have the best grades and SAT scores in their high schools are usually the individuals that are from middle-class to affluent families where parents can afford tutors and preparation courses for their children (Holzer & Neumark, 2005). This disadvantages Blacks and Hispanics just as much even though the UC policy is purely meritorious and not literally something that will profile race. As shown in the bar graph above, because of our social stratification, this policy of admission is inherently discriminatory. Family income is directly correlated to how well a student will perform in high school. Despite the actions of the state, many of which are led by Ward Connerly (a Black Republican of California in charge of the American Civil Rights Coalition), to exclude race and gender from admissions and to create more fair admissions practices, they end up harming minorities regardless of intention (Robinson 2006). This policy seems to benefit Whites and Asians even more for admissions because the majority of these two groups are predisposed to do better academically. Hence, this is another barrier towards racial equality in California.
Affirmative action seems to be a double-edged sword for Asians. Asians are a very large group, consisting of people from well over ten countries in the Pacific as well as American-Asians whom are first, second, or even third generation Americans. This cohort is extremely dominant in the academic community, where they consist of less than 5% of the U.S. population, but “make up 10 to 30 percent of students at the nation’s best colleges” (Egan 2007). “Asians made up 24 percent of the undergraduate population at Carnegie Mellon and at Stanford, 27 percent at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 14 percent at
Yale and 13 percent at Princeton” last year (Egan 2007). Because of their overall academic superiority, affirmative action hurts the aggregate cohort. At the University of Texas at Austin, where affirmative action is banned; prior to its enactment, the university accepted 68% of the Asians that had applied, whereas after the law was enforced, it accepted 81% of all Asians whom have applied (Schmidt 2003). Further, in 2005, Asian-Americans that applied to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, where affirmative action was legal, were accepted at 54%, while Blacks were accepted at 71% and Hispanics at 79%. This was despite the fact that Asians had much higher SAT scores than the others (Egan 2007). While affirmative action hurts many of these students because they are considered more of a majority academically, discriminated against, as well as by discounted from such affirmative action practices, it can help students as well. Generally speaking, the amount of people affirmative action helps is overshadowed by the amount that it hurts though. Many Asian students come from countries and families that are not as well off as that of those in the United States. These students are usually proponents for affirmative action, but are in the minority of their group that actually want it.
The lack of affirmative action, while generally beneficial to Asians, could possibly induce social consequences within the universities if their numbers were to increase drastically. For example, because of the way they are raised, Asians have a special respect for their elders. This plays a role in the classroom. Instead of more Socratic methods of learning, like raising their hands and participating in class, they are taught to play the role of learner and to not question what the professors say. While this may seem like a generalization, there is truth to this, much because of multi-generational custom. As far fetched as some may think, if Asians become the majority in most institutions, such a thing could play a role in changing the nature of classrooms in post-secondary education.
The Asian students face an interesting ideological dilemma in affirmative action. Because of their strength in numbers academically, they usually represent more than Blacks and Hispanics combined in universities. As shown above, affirmative action is harmful to the cohort’s overall success, but is generally seen as beneficial to the scholastic minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics in acceptance rates such as that of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. “In a recent national poll conducted by The Chronicle [of Higher Education], 45 percent of Asian-American respondents agreed with the assertion that colleges should admit students from racial minority groups even if they have lower grade-point averages and standardized-test scores than other students” (Schmidt 2003). The 55% majority has spoken against affirmative action, but that should not discount the 45% that were pro-affirmative action as statistically insignificant. This is significant because it posits a divide between the students, despite how much affirmative action will or will not help them. The 55% of respondents, though, are the people whom are the majority, and the majority usually wins.
Hispanics and African Americans are the two groups that take the largest hit from the removal of affirmative action and receive the most gain from having it in place. Since both cohorts are experiencing similar effects and are similar in social stratification, these two groups will be spoken of together. On principle, because someone is homosexual, it does not mean that they are a Democrat. The same principle can be followed with affirmative action. Just because someone is Black or Hispanic, it does not mean that the person will approve of or support affirmative action. Both sides of the ideology will be explored further to ascertain a better understanding of why people within their group are for or against it.
There are many opponents to this policy from both groups, with one of the leaders being Ward Connerly. It has been said in numerous publications that he is traveling from state to state in discussions with party and governmental leadership in creating ballot initiatives to stop affirmative action (Lewin 2007). The reasons to be against affirmative action for Hispanics and Blacks are very legitimate and are based on strong ideologies. One claim is that they are “violations of an allegedly ‘color blind’ Constitution, as ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites, and as demeaning to the individuals they are intended to elevate” (Robinson 2006). Under Amendment XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution, it states “...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This can be seen as a broad argument that state schools with affirmative action are depriving people from life and liberty.
Some opponents say affirmative action is reverse discrimination against Whites because racial minorities with less credentials are being picked over Whites with more credentials; another wholly valid argument. This can also be considered the unfair advantage frame because affirmative action gives African Americans and Hispanics an unfair advantage that they have not earned (Kinder & Sanders, 1996).
Further, the position that affirmative action is demeaning is saying in lay man’s terms, that Blacks and Hispanics are not smart enough or motivated enough to do the necessary work in order to achieve the same goals as Whites and Asians, so a hand out is in need. Also, another opposing view against these policies is that they say that minorities are unequal and, because of quotas, show a lack of equality.
There is also the mismatch hypothesis, where students who are accepted in to upper class universities are unable to do the work because they are not as prepared as the students entering without affirmative action, hence being ‘mismatched’ in to schools (Holzer & Neumark, 2005). This specific argument has had some research and is something that can be empirically tested. Data collection for the mismatch hypothesis is difficult, and there is room for further investigation that could prove valuable in arguments for or against affirmative action in the future.
Arguments for affirmative action are more often than not a liberal point of view. Regardless of one’s sphere of beliefs, affirmative action can invigorate the supporters just as much as the opposition is charged. Some of the opinions in support of this policy are ones such as having affirmative action in order to rid racism, achieve equality, receive partial reparations for slavery and the injustices of history, and some people are mobilized for it because they feel group identity.
Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in the Bakke case of 1978 was that “in order to get beyond racism, we must first take into account race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987). This view takes largely in to account that there are huge disparities in America between classes and ethnicities. To reiterate, the bar graph on page four is a sample of the gap between ethnicities. If those two groups with lesser incomes are the main two groups being assisted, and affirmative action were positively affecting them, it would not only help to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor, but help with racial equality as well. One reason why Blacks and Hispanics receive negative treatment in society in comparison to Whites is because they are two of the poorest and least educated racial groups and are seen as inferior by the upper class. Equality and respect can be relatively synonymous terms, and if these two cohorts get unconditional respect from the upper class, then they will undoubtedly be considered equal in society. Furthermore, that is how affirmative action can help minorities.
Some supporters of affirmative action also see it as something necessary and owed to them, especially black supporters. This is mainly because of slavery and oppression since the 17th century. It is my belief that the people of the United States were forced to choose; they would rather have affirmative action than give monetary reparations to African Americans, which some estimate would cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It is the belief of many, though, that something is owed to Blacks for the hardships they endured, and with affirmative action, there is something they can see that is being done to help almost specifically them.
Group identity can, in my opinion, also be considered to be collective identity. Some believe affirmative action is a type of collective action because it’s an effort to end disparages between minorities and majorities. Also, being part of a collective issue like affirmative action helps to provide even more of a psychological identity of belonging to a cause that you believe in. The prospect of supporting affirmative action because of group identity is not the most legitimate of ideologies, but supporting it because a person truly believes in it and receiving that feeling of collective identity seems noteworthy.
In my findings, I cannot find any reasons or data to show that affirmative action for Hispanics and African Americans are adversely affecting Asian Americans, Whites, or other groups as a whole. It is a common belief that people who receive affirmative action in university admissions take spots away from Whites, which I have not found to be entirely true, but I cannot disprove it either due to a lack of available empirical data. Further, from the data reviewed in my references and that I collected, it seems that the White cohort also has had no impact on the rest of the groups since it has largely remained the control group and the majority, minus a few exceptions like UC Berkeley.
What does having affirmative action mean for university admissions? One of the largest draws of affirmative action that admissions committees like is that it mandates them to maintain a more diverse student population and follow quotas. Also, it provides universities the ability to give students a chance at higher education that they may have not received otherwise. Because of this, they may also be subjected to civil suits of reverse discrimination from Whites or Asians. Further, because admissions is accepting students with lower credentials, they are lowering the bar for their university slightly, which may decrease prestige as well.
What does the banning of racial preferences mean for university admissions? This allows universities to become pure meritocracies. Having racial preference-free admissions gives admissions the chance to attract the brightest students that they can. Such a policy tends to preclude them from having civil suits filed against them on the basis of race- a generally positive notion. As shown on Page 3, this can cause a decline in adversity on campus, and an increase in the Asian population overall. Because of this, universities must find other and more original methods in order to attract students from different ethnic backgrounds. Whether there are different recruiting methods or better advertising, something needs to be done so that universities can have a diversified student body. Since more states are joining the fight against affirmative action, admissions programs are going to need plans to counter-act the effects of losing racial preferences.
Earlier, Asian public opinion was touched upon, and there was a 55% favor in dropping affirmative action programs. Further, other cohort and aggregate opinions will be explored. According to Gallup polls with a sample size of 1,385 adults nationwide and a margin of error of plus or minus three percent, when asked “Do you generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities,” 49% favored it, 43% opposed, and 8% were unsure. But when broken down in to public group opinion, Whites generally opposed it, and Blacks and Hispanics overwhelmingly supported such policies with 70% and 63% respectively. Next, "If two equally qualified students, one white and one black, applied to a major U.S. college or university, who do you think would have the better chance of being accepted to the college: the white student, the black student [options rotated] -- or would they have the same chance?" The responses were rather interesting. Whites, 24% of the time picked the White student, 34% picked the Black student as favored, 38% said they had the same chance, and 4% were unsure. This shows that White opinion is more progressive and assumes admissions are doing things to help minorities. Now, when asked Blacks the same question, 67% picked the White student to be favored, 5% for the Black student to be favored, ad 24% said both students had the same chance. Coupled with Hispanic opinion in a similar nature, 44% of Hispanics said the White student would be favored, 14% said the Black student would be favored, and 38% said both students had the same chance of admission. From the data above, it can be speculated that Blacks and Hispanics feel like admissions are oppressive to minority groups and that there is a strong racial bias against them. General opinion favored the White student by 2% and 36% said both students to have an equal chance. These public opinion polls are interesting in that they can help us to further understand race relations and to show policy makers what direction aggregate opinion is moving on affirmative action policies.
In conclusion, affirmative action is an issue that divides our nation. It has been an ongoing topic of discussion for decades, and we can still find no “right” answer to the problem. Affirmative action affects each group differently in its purpose to redress past discrimination to minorities. The Asian cohort, a large and strong academic body, is mal-affected by these policies, while African Americans and Hispanics are assisted greatly, despite their public opinion. Because of the nature of these times, opinion has been shifting towards the elimination of affirmative action in favor of admissions based solely on merit. Proponents for this would say that it is the right thing to do, and opponents would disagree. In the end, assuming this trend of eliminating affirmative action continues, without social and governmental intervention in the basic K-12 school system nationwide, minorities will continue to suffer due to their economic position in society.
References
CQ Researcher. 2002. “Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Admissions.”
Egan, Timothy. 2007. “Little Asia on the Hill.” New York Times, 7 January.
Gamson, William A. and Modigliani, Andre. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” Research in Political Sociology Volume 3: 137-177.
Holzer, Harry J. and Neumark, David. 2005. “Affirmative Action: What Do We Know?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Kennedy-Dubourdieu, Elaine and Robinson, Jo Ann Ooiman. 2006. Race and Inequality: World Perspectives on Affirmative Action. Burlington, VT. Ashgate Publishing Company.
Kinder, Donald R and Sanders, Lynn M. 1996. Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago, Illinois. The University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, Tamar. 2007. “Colleges Regroup after Voters Ban Race Preferences.” New York Times, 26 January.
Piazza, Thomas and Sniderman, Paul M. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press.
The Polling Report: Race & Ethnicity. 2007.
http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htmSan Francisco Chronicle. 2006. “The Legacy of Proposition 209.” 6 November.
Schmidt, Peter. 2003. “For Asians, Affirmative Action Cuts Both Ways.” The Chronicle of Higher Education Volume 49 Issue 39:pA24.
University of California at Berkeley. 2007.
http://www.berkeley.edu/
