This past week we covered some cases involving affirmative action in schools, including Fisher v. University of Texas and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The ruling for the latter was that racial quotas are unconstitutional, but race can be used as "one of many factors" for college admissions. But if we take a look at how the college admissions process has evolved, a recent debate has spurred over the use of affirmative action and whether even race should be considered. Public and private universities are allowed to try and have a certain number of minority students, but this doesn't mean that they can reject other qualified applicants. However, private schools have a bit more leeway when it comes to choosing applicants based on race because the student body is generally smaller than that of public schools. Public schools can resort to other methods such as recruitment or outreach programs to attract minority students. Also, admissions directors tend to look at factors other than GPA and test scores because not all schools have the same resources (i.e. Advanced Placement classes.) Yet, some people feel that affirmative action was effective initially but now it should be banned. In fact, some states, such as California and Michigan, have already eliminated it. Opponents believe that each individual should have an equal chance of being admitted, and affirmative action can promote "reverse discrimination" and eliminate meritocracy. I personally believe that race should remain as a factor because it is an important way to create a diverse student body. I also think that affirmative action is important because it encourages education and helps those who are disadvantaged.
sources:
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/college-planning/admissions/race-college-admissions2.htm
https://greengarageblog.org/20-principal-pros-and-cons-of-affirmative-action
I agree with you that affirmative action is important in order to level the playing field in college applications. I think in this area, many people are blind to the hardships that people outside of the bay area face, especially in poor majority black areas. They aren't really given the same change we have been given, with our highly ranked schools with lots of programs. I obviously don't think that race should be the main factor than gets a person into a certain school or not, but I don't think anybody is arguing that. As long as it allows for people to be able to be given the chance to succeed that they were not given originally, I think that it is important for it to continue.
ReplyDeleteI think looking at race is just a way to see people in the context of their environment and upbringing. People who live in high-performing areas tend to have more opportunities to do better on tests like the SAT and to have more extracurriculars. However, minorities might live in areas that do not have these opportunities as the article https://www.brookings.edu/articles/unequal-opportunity-race-and-education/ explains (potentially due to a worse educational system and a lack of extracurricular activities available to the students). Therefore, many colleges and universities feel that they should take people's environment and context into account (which can include race) to not unfairly reject someone because they had less opportunities in school.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion. This issue is a lot more complex than it seems. People assume that when college admissions say that they consider race as a factor, they overlook the fact that race is also associated with the environment that the students are brought up in. A lot of minority students live in low-income areas which affects the quality of education that they receive. I understand that people are concerned about how affirmative action may harm other minorities, as seen in the Harvard case, but I think affirmative action/race factors need to remain because it's a way to increase diversity and encourage learning.
DeleteSimilarly, I think that a lot of the problem lies in economic position in addition to race or ethnicity. Since minority groups tend to be more economically challenged (https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities), they tend to have less access to resources like SAT tutors, college counselors, extracurriculars, and other expensive resources that could make them seem like a better candidate for admissions. Given the correlation between economic disparity and race disparity, I agree that affirmative action is an important step towards equitable treatment for people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. However, affirmative action doesn't directly deal with the economic divide that largely impacts educational opportunity, as its primary motivation is racial diversity. While this is an honorable pursuit in and of itself, I think this is partially what leads to the common issues people see with affirmative action(like in the Harvard case – giving preference to some over other highly qualified applicants only because of their race). So, my question is this: is there a way for affirmative action to better address both racial and socioeconomic disparities and to be used solely to advocate/create social equity?
DeleteI think that having race blind admissions ultimately ends up hurting the diversity at certain universities. For example, you mentioned the University of California system, whose underrepresented groups dropped by nearly half. (Diversity Snapshot. Diversity Snapshot, Berkeley University of California, 2013). However, schools like Berkeley are finding ways to increase diversity in ways that don't take race at its face value, by increasing the amount of consideration for socioeconomic status, which increased the attendance of blacks and latinos by 30% and 22%, respectively. Ultimately, schools need to find a way to balance ways to consider race and increase diversity within their schools without adversely hurting other minorities like Asians.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the fact that certain colleges want to have a certain amount of diversity. The problem emerges when they start to create quotas to meet their diversity requirements. In creating quotas, asians are often more discriminated because on average they tend to apply to higher colleges with less space available. Colleges are treating its students equally, but not equitably.
ReplyDeleteI think that the controversy surrounding race based admissions is really difficult and there's no inherent "right answer", at least for me, because I can see both sides of the issue. I 100% think that there needs to be actions taken in order to better "level the playing field", so to speak. However, maybe it's because I'm Asian myself, but knowing that some people are disadvantaged in the college admissions system compared to others, in order to fix the issue of disadvantaged groups in college admissions doesn't really make sense to me. Just as I believe that race shouldn't be a reason that anyone doesn't get into a college or a university, I also see it on the flip side that race shouldn't be a reason that anyone gets into a college or a university.
ReplyDeleteI think that affirmative action will always be a very controversial topic with both sides having fair points. I think that schools should promote diversity, but I often think using race as a factor is inherently wrong, especially when it is used to hurt some minorities. By using race as a factor, I think that this marginalizes a lot of people and that there could be other ways in order to promote this diversity instead. For example, Asians-Americans may have one of the highest average incomes in the US, but they also have the largest variance for that as well. Therefore, you have some asians making 200k and some making 20k. In this way, affirmative action can really hurt those that are in need and I feel like more comprehensive analysis of students needs to be taken instead of purely relying on race.
ReplyDelete