The Charges against Race-Sensitive Admissions

Karen Kim
Ph.D. student at UCLA

But, the Chronicle report says that opponents of Affirmative Action vow to continue the fight, in part by taking the issue to the Supreme Court. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education on May 10, 2000 presents one of the compelling arguments against race preferences by Ward Connerly, who after successfully leading the charge against affirmative action in California has focused on national efforts to eliminate race-sensitive admissions policies. Connerly states: "My life experiences tell me that the question ‘Who are you?’ is the most important one we can ask. And when we focus less on group identity and more on individuals and their individual humanity, we are creating equal" ("My Fight").

These articles illustrate that arguments about race-sensitive admissions may oversimplify (or even misrepresent) the issues in an appeal to the emotions of their audience. Taking these statements at face value, one might believe that affirmative action was mainly a response to a shortcoming in college admissions policies and that everyone will be treated equally if we stop talking about race. These types of arguments are a disservice to both sides.

As tensions surrounding race-sensitive admissions continue to grow, proponents of eliminating race-based policies are gaining momentum. A conservative political climate, as seen in the mandates for race neutrality in California and Washington and a recent court decision (Hopwood v. State of Texas), which significantly limits the use of race as criteria for admissions in three states, fuel this charge. Although race sensitive admissions policies are still widely used, a vocal opposition has destabilized the foundation on which these practices are based (Tierney, 1997).

Arguments against race-sensitive admissions overlap and work in concert with each other. Four main charges encompass many of these seemingly disparate complaints into clear areas of discussion: (1) a moral argument which charges that society should be colorblind; (2) an economic charge that argues race-based policies admit unqualified students, creating a financial burden for institutions; (3) a charge of "social Darwinism" which argues that race-based policies do not allow for normal selection process; and (4) a political charge which questions whether policies effectively service society. In order to establish a position on the issues of race sensitive admissions that is not based on cursory emotional pleas, one must first critically examine these charges with the support of related research.

A Moral Position - Society Should be "Colorblind"

The moral argument generates a charge that attacks the assumptions on which race sensitive admissions are based. This "colorblind" argument suggests that focusing on racial differences is wrong and may actually be harmful. Critics contend that race sensitive admissions policies actually aggravate racial tensions on campuses and society in general (Bowen and Bok, 1998, p.266). As a noble alternative, this argument proposes that one should be colorblind to race and treat individuals equally. Connerly (2000) makes the argument for color-blindness when he states, "At last, we can hope to one day see each other as individuals rather than categories" ("My Fight"). The demand for color-blindness, which is presented as a moral imperative in Connerly’s claim of victory in the overturning of affirmative action in California, suggests that affirmative action perpetuates racial inequality.

In the foreword to The Shape of the River, Loury (1998) argues that color-blindness does not eliminate race-consciousness but rather emphasizes it (p.April 2001vii). Loury also contends that the morality of color-blindness is in opposition with the pursuit of racial justice, i.e., a concern to find ways to reduce the patterns of social inequalities between groups (p. April 2001ii). Thus, the demand for color-blindness may appeal to one’s moral ideals but causes one to ignore the inequities present in society. Chang (2000) points to several incidents of racial violence and racial antipathy on college campuses that show minorities are still discriminated against.

The demand for colorblindness assumes that all people are treated equally and can be judged by neutral criteria. Tierney (1997) states that this view not only fails to redress past wrongs but also fails to accept that discrimination is the source of this injustice (p. 191). In fact, affirmative action, which serves as basis for race sensitive admissions policies, came out of the civil rights movement as a result of African-American’s desire to fight racism and promote socioeconomic justice (Ong 2000). In the 1960s, affirmative action was established by presidential mandates to reverse the under-representation of certain groups (Tierney 1997; Cohen 1998). Statistics show that after the elimination of affirmative action in the University of California system, enrollments of underrepresented groups diminished ("After Affirmative"). Thus, the colorblind approach is idealized and somewhat unrealistic if one hopes to promote the opportunities for underrepresented students on U.S. campuses.

While the University of California system became slightly less diverse after the repeal of affirmative action, several studies show that racial diversity on college campuses is often linked to positive effects on student development (Astin 1993b; Bowen and Bok 1998; Chang 2000). For example, Astin (1993b) points out that emphasis on diversity has positive effects on several student satisfaction measures including overall satisfaction and satisfaction with student life as well as student’s commitment to promoting racial understanding. These results seem to counter the "colorblind" approach for two reasons. First, the research shows positive effects of racial diversity. But, without race sensitive admissions, enrollments of underrepresented students may decrease (Bowen and Bok, 1998), and campuses will become less diverse. Secondly, racial diversity may help to decrease racial tension.

A Economic Position - Race-Sensitive Admissions Create Financial Burden

The second charge against race-sensitive admissions comes from an economic standpoint. That is, these policies cause an undue financial burden on institutions because they require additional services and resources, especially if minority students are less academically prepared or require more financial aid. This economic viewpoint is based on the fact that groups are competing for limited resources. This competition is heightened when one considers that the debate of race-sensitive admissions concerns mostly selective institutions (Bowen and Bok, 1998, p. April 2001xvii). These critics will point to governmental budgetary constraints and changes in financial aid structures for additional support (Zusman, 1999, p. 121).

Zusman (1999) states that the increasing perception that higher education is a private good as well as the trend for state and institutional decisions to be made on financial grounds rather than policy grounds further compound this issue. This argument also assumes that enrolling underrepresented students is more costly, requiring more remedial programs and additional assistance and special services to help them adjust to an unfamiliar environment (Altbach, Lomotey, and Kyle, 1999, p. 452).

The arguments against this charge start with its basic assumptions: certain students are more "deserving" of acceptance into selective institutions at the top of the hierarchy and underrepresented students are likely to be less qualified than other students. Although many assume that more "qualified" students are more deserving of acceptance to selective institutions, this view denies the importance of an essential function of educational institutions, i.e., to educate students (Astin, 1993a, p. 6). Astin’s (1993a) talent development approach offers institutions an alternative way to work toward excellence, i.e., through developing the talents of students and faculty (p. 6). If institutions focused on developing talent, they might benefit from admitting less qualified students.

Astin’s alternative provides a compelling argument against the institution that contends some students are more deserving of their resources as well as those who want only to admit students who can help themselves. The assumption that underrepresented students may be less qualified and require more resources is based on racial stereotypes. In fact, Bowen and Bok (1998) provide evidence that shows that institutions are generally selecting from a pool of highly qualified applicants from all types of backgrounds.

In a study comparing African-American student outcomes at Historically Black and predominantly White institutions, Allen (1992) suggests that African-American students in predominantly White institutions need more adequate financial aid, academic remediation, and academic support services that will help them to become a part of the educational community (p. 41). Although this research seems to support the economic argument against race-sensitive admissions, one might again argue against the presumption that special needs make a candidate less deserving. Even if some students require additional resources, the practice of not admitting them because of financial burden is discriminatory. The notion of public higher education as an agency for increasing equity in society (Tierney, 1997) also supports an alternative to the economic argument, i.e., educating underrepresented students will increase their earning potential and will also allow them to give back to society.

A "Social Darwinist" Position - Admissions Should Favor the Most Qualified

The third argument against race based admissions comes from the theory of "social Darwinism." The basis of this argument presumes that by following natural progression, the most capable will always rise to the top. This argument can also be argued from the notion of "merit," i.e., a reward system which promotes those who accomplish specified goals is the most fair method of selection. The converse of this argument is that race based admissions are often "not fair" because they create "reverse discrimination" favoring less deserving minorities over individuals who qualify on merit alone. Three significant court cases (Bakke, Banneker, and Hopwood) concern complaints of discrimination as a result of race-based policies.

Another illustration of this argument is seen when poor, white students are not accepted in "favor" of minority students (Tierney, 1997, p. 189). Critics also argue that accepting minorities may actually harm them rather than help (Bowen and Bok, 1998). Bowen and Bok (1998) offer three reasons that race based admissions may be argued to harm minorities: perpetuates a victim mentality (p. 264), causes apathy and laziness (p. 260), and creates the feeling of not belonging (p. 261).

The essence of the argument of "social Darwinism" presumes that all individuals started on an equal playing field. In the case of higher education, decades of discriminatory practices and the remnants of them still create an environment in which some are advantaged over others (Karabel, 1984;Duster, 1995; Tierney, 1997; Bowen and Bok, 1998). The argument of "merit," which has many followers, also fails of similar grounds, i.e., the notion of "merit" assumes that the rules and criteria for judging are the same for everyone.

Tierney (1997) responds to the criticism of unfairness by pointing to a race track metaphor, i.e., since the runners are on an oval track and some have further distances to travel, the starting positions are staggered to account for these differences (Tierney, 1997, p. 187). In concrete terms, one can note the differences in K-12 educational quality and the arguments for cultural biases on standardized tests to conclude that the basis of "merit" is not the same for all individuals. Even if each individual’s standardized test scores and grade point averages meant the same thing, this would not be sufficient criteria on which to judge applicants for admission to college (Bowen and Bok, 1998, p. 25). Finally, Bowen and Bok (1998) point to extensive data, showing minority students who were accepted to selective institutions under race sensitive admission policies generally are more successful in school and the workplace than their counterparts in less selective schools (p. 262).

Research conducted by McDonough (1997) on college choice shows how one’s cultural capital, namely personal background and socioeconomic status, create differential effects on this hypothetically equal playing field. McDonough’s findings reveal that college choice was generally a class-based decision and that low SES students were more likely to choose colleges based on local opportunity and financial constraints whereas high SES students focused on prestige (p. 154). These results offer further evidence against the "social Darwinist" who claims that the most capable will always rise to the top because this view denies the possibility that many potentially capable individuals do not have the opportunities necessary to enable them to rise to the top.

A Political Position - Race Sensitive Admissions Policies Do Not Service Society

The fourth charge against race sensitive admissions relies on a political stance. This charge asks the question, "Do race-based admissions work?" The roots of this question focus on the effectiveness of the policy and the benefits to the population. Doubts in these foundational issues become manifest through political agendas and legal action. The transition of political climate from one of social responsibility, starting in the 1960s when affirmative action was established, to a focus on the individual in the 1980s and 1990s set the stage for the critics of race sensitive admissions.

Affirmative action was established not to address needs of individuals but rather to benefit groups that had been discriminated against and was designed as an active policy to change the status quo (Tierney, 1997). Thus, the conservative political ethos that developed during Reagan’s terms as President in the 1980s opposed the very foundation that affirmative action was built on. Reagan’s appointment of several Supreme Court justices also adversely impacted the viability of race-sensitive admissions policies (Ong, 2000, p. 319).

One of the main criticisms of the effectiveness of race-sensitive admissions policies turns to the students' admissions statistics and argues that these policies have not produced significant percentage gains for the minority groups that they serve (Tierney, 1997, p. 177). A second criticism points to the controversy involving discrimination of Asian American students in the admissions practices at several selective institutions. As a result, conservative politicians have tried to convince Asian Americans to join their crusade to abolish race sensitive admissions (Takagi 1990).

Two responses can be launched to critics who deny progress toward racial parity by focusing on enrollment statistics. First of all, the use of race sensitive admissions is not a quota system but rather a system which considers combination of criteria used as a whole (Bowen and Bok, 1998, p. 25). Thus, affirmative action is not a sole reason for someone’s acceptance to a program but a contributing factor (Tierney 1997, p. 177). Since admissions offices do not use statistical formulas to decide admissions these formulas should not be the criteria for judging their success. Secondly, if one wants to understand how affirmative action has benefited society, one should look at the bigger picture rather than focusing solely on the numbers. While Bok and Bowen (1998) highlight individual success stories, Astin (1993b) provides research that shows an institutional commitment to emphasizing diversity has positive effects on several outcomes, including cultural awareness and commitment to promoting racial understanding (p. 46).

The controversy surrounding the practice of developing quotas that keep qualified Asian Americans out of selective institutions is not excusable. And, yet it cannot be confused as a problem with race-sensitive admissions. Because this occurrence has similar traits to the practice of keeping Jewish students out of the "Big Three" during the 1920s and 1930s (Karabel, 1984), one might argue that these discriminatory practices were established outside of the realm of affirmative action. The responses by university officials involved in the scandal also do not seem to explicitly cite affirmative action as a factor in this practice (Takagi, 1990). If this controversy did develop as a result of the pressures of affirmative action forcing these institutions to juggle numbers, this practice would be illegal under the ruling in Bakke that admission quotas are illegal. Political conservatives may want to use this situation to help their cause, but the majority of Asian Americans do not find this a compelling reason to abolish race-sensitive admissions (Ong, 2000, p. 349).

In critically analyzing the charges against affirmative action, the research seems to overwhelmingly support race-sensitive admissions. Is this the result of the biases of the researchers? Or is this the failure of this author to find equal support for both sides? Looking critically at the arguments of several well-respected scholars, it seems clear that this support for race-sensitive admissions is logically grounded and should not be ignored.

References

Allen, W. R. (1992, Spring). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at predominantly white and historically black public institutions and universities.  Harvard Education Review. 66, 26-44.

Altbach, P., Lomotey, K., and Kyle, S. (1999). Race in higher education: the continuing crisis.  American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Ed. Altbach, P., Berdahl, R, and Gumport, P. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.

Astin, A.W. (1993a).  Assessment for excellence. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.

Astin, A.W. (1993b). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How students are affected?  Change, 23, 44-49.

Bowen, W. and Bok, D. (1998).  The shape of the river: Long term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton: Princeton UP.

Chang, M.J. (2000). Improving Campus Racial Dynamics: A balancing act among competing interests.  The Review of Higher Education, 23.2, 153-175.

Cohen, A.M. (1998).  The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Connerly, Ward. My fight against race preferences: A quest toward "creating equal." (2000, March 10). The Chronicle of Higher Education, B-6. <http://chronicle.com/>

Duster, T. (1995). They’re taking over! And other myths about race on campus. In M. Berube & C. Nelson (Eds.), Higher education under fire: Politics, economics, and the crisis of the humanities. New York: Routledge.

"Education/Reading and the Classroom: Issues, People and Trends; In Brief; Vote Scheduled on Affirmative Action" (2001, March 21).  Los Angeles Times, B-2.

Karabel, J. (1984). Status group struggle, organizational interests, and the limits of autonomy: The transformation of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, 1918-1940.  Theory and Society, 13, 1-40.

Loury, G. (1998) Foreword.  The shape of the river: Long term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. By W. Bowen and D. Bok (1998). Princeton: Princeton UP.

McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity. New York: State Univ of New York Press.

Ong, P. (2000). The affirmative action divide. In P. Ong (Ed.) Transforming Race Relations: A public policy report. LEAP, Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute, and UCLA Asian American Studies Center, vol. 4.

Skrentny, J.D. (2001, February 16) "Affirmative Action and New Demographic Realities"  The Chronicle of Higher Education, B-7.

Takagi, D. (1990, November). From discrimination to affirmative action: Facts in the Asian Americans Admissions Controversy.  Social Problems, 37.4.

Tierney, W. (1997, Summer). The paramethers of affirmative action: Equity and excellence in the academy.  Review of Educational Research, 67.2, 165-196.

Zusman, A. (1999). Issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. Edited by Altbach, P., Berdahl, R, and Gumport, P. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: April 2001 / Updated: Tuesday, 10 April 2001