Use of Affirmative Action Policies within the Configuration of Admissions Decisions

Introduction

As much as a campus is built with the brick and mortar of physical structures and buildings, it is also built through the composition of its student body. Admission decisions have a critical and distinctive role in establishing diversity and inclusion on college campuses (Winkle-Wagner & Locks, 2014).

For this reason, it is imperative that the University establish use of affirmative action policies within the configuration of admissions decisions. This is not to suggest that qualified applicants be rejected in favor of applicants not adequately prepared for success in college for the sake of diversity and inclusion. To the contrary, I propose that race be considered as one component of the decision matrix. Factors of merit must be considered in combination with a personal index of factors including family backgrounds such as socio-economic status as well as evidence of critical character traits, extracurricular involvement, leadership and service.

History

The Civil Rights Act, which was passed in 1964, made it illegal for any program assisted by the federal government, including institutions of higher education, to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex or national origin (Moses, 2002). As a result, institutions of higher education had a responsibility to act in not only complying with this new regulation of law but also to ethically work toward righting the wrongs of the past with regard to inequality of access and opportunity in which institutions across the country played a considerable role. One of the policies established to begin this process of making amends in higher education and beyond was affirmative action (Bowen & Bak, 1998; Moses, 2010).

Virtually from its inception, affirmative action policies have been a topic of heated debate in the arena of college admissions. Due to opposition and cases filed against use of affirmative action in college admission decisions, many colleges have ceased using affirmative action policies either due to state rulings or institutional decisions (Grodsky & Kalogrides; 2008) despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to use race as a consideration in the admissions process.

Most recently was the case of Fisher v. the University of Texas in which white woman claimed that she was denied admission on the basis of race and was a violation of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled in the favor of the University of Texas acknowledging that race, as long as it is not the sole criteria for the selection of one applicant over another, is a viable element of consideration in college admissions. The court further noted that the pursuit of establishing a diverse student body is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher learning (Liptak, 2016).

Problem Statement

Some would argue that affirmative action policies are no longer needed with gains seen in access to minority students and women, for example, since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act fifty years ago. While gains in access and opportunity have occurred, it will take much more time to effectively reverse the full effects of hundreds of years of discrimination and oppression.

For example, women still take a significant loss with regard to earning potential with wages at 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010). Unemployment rates continue to be twice that of whites for black people and attainment of four years of college or more is still 2:1, white to black respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010).

In the last 40 years, both women and black students have seen significant gains in both college admission and degree completion. Yet, it is an unfortunate reality that students of color, especially Black and Hispanic students, are found to be more notably underrepresented than they were in the mid-1980s. At 45 of the 50 flagship state universities, a considerable disparity of black student enrollment still exists in relation to white enrollment (Maxwell, 2019).

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Accessibility to higher education and enlightenment for ALL students is necessary in closing these gaps. Administrators cannot be complacent and assume that past gains will continue in and of themselves. Research shows that if affirmative action policies disappear, the representation of Black students at many selective college campuses would drop even further to a mere 2% of the student body, effectively reversing much of the progress toward equality that has been achieved (Bowen & Bok, 1998).

There is also a perception by many that the public at large no longer supports the policy of affirmative action. However, polls prove otherwise. If fact, according to the Pew Research Center (2007), 70% of Americans are in favor of 'affirmative action programs to help blacks, women and other minorities get better jobs and education.'

There have been attempts at alternatives to affirmative action in order to achieve campus diversity such as class-based and percent plan admission policies. Neither method seems to achieve the desired effect. In the case of class-based admissions, it is true that class and race a linked in many ways. However, the policy fails to take into consideration that when controlled for income, high school students of color still lag well behind white students in their academic profiles due to issues of equal opportunity at the elementary and secondary levels (Hing, 2014). Therefore, these students are losing out in the admissions race as many are not considered comparably qualified applicants. On the other hand, the policy of using percent plans also has its flaws. While granting automatic admission to students in the top percentage of graduates for each school in the state may bolster the diversity of applicant pools, it does not necessarily translate into the diversity of their student body (Allen, 2019). Even though these students may be within the designated percentage, the policy fails to account for the fact that academic opportunities and support through funding can vary from school to school, again impacting college readiness and awareness.

Policy Recommendation & Analysis of Costs/Benefits

In order to bolster institutional goals of study body diversity, the University must proceed with admission procedures that are, at least in part, race-conscious. Affirmative action, which allows for a holistic review of race in conjunction with other critical factors of determining student matriculation, retention and success, is the best method of remedy for past inequities. It ensures students of color fair consideration alongside comparable applicants (Maxwell, 2019). Therefore, I propose that all applicants to the University be considered on a personal points matrix consisting of the following factors.

• High School GPA
• High School Rank
• Evaluation of Qualified High School Coursework
• Race
• Socio-economic background
• Extracurricular Involvement, Leadership and Service
• Evidence of Critical Character Traits such as Perseverance, Motivation and Resourcefulness through Personal Essay and Recommendation Prompts

The final factor is critical in that evidence of character traits such as perseverance, motivation and resourcefulness are also factors that can outweigh GPA and test scores in determining a student’s ability to be successful in college (Duckworth, 2018.) The consideration of all applicants among comparable candidates across the matrix of these factors is supported by public opinion, adheres to conceptions of fairness, and is least likely to find applicants which are selected for admission to be viewed as unqualified or undeserving. (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Nacoste, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis, 1994).

With greater student diversity comes the enhancement of the educational experience for the entire campus community. Diversity on campus and in the classroom reduces bias and improves intellectual self-confidence, and leadership skills (Maxwell, 2019). These benefits are those that will transcend the boundaries of our campus and lead to stronger personal, professional and economic outcomes for our graduates as well as strengthening the global economy with the productivity and creativity that comes with a diversity of thought and experience.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we cannot let fear over court cases or misguided opinions on the definition of equity derail what we know to be the true path forward in establishing what is best for our University now and far into the future – a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion within our campus community – so that our graduates can go out into the world and make their mark for the greater good of the global society.

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

References

1. Allen, S. (2019, July 15). Texas’ Top 10% College Admissions Rule Doesn’t Do Much, Study Shows. Retrieved from https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-top-10-college-admissions-rule-doesnt-do-much-study-suggests-11707403
2. Bowen, W., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Duckworth, A. (2018). Grit: the power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner.
4. Grodsky, E., & Kalogrides, D. (2008). The declining significance of race in college admissions decisions. American Journal of Education, 115(1), 1-33.
5. Hing, J. (2014, April 23). Class-based college admissions are no magic wand for keeping schools diverse [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/class-based-college-admissions-affirmative-action-race
6. Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 928-938.
7. Liptak, A. (2016, June 23). Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at the University of Texas [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-affirmative-action-university-of-texas.html
8. Maxwell, C. (2019, October 1). 5 Reasons to Support Affirmative Action in College Admissions [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/10/01/471085/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/
9. Moses, M. S. (2002). Embracing race: Why we need race-conscious education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10. Moses, M. S. (2010). Moral and instrumental rationales for affirmative action in five national contexts. Educational Researcher, 39(3), 211-228.
11. Nacoste, R. W. (1985). Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 225-242.
12. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2007, March 22). Trends in political values and core attitudes:m 1987-2007. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/312.pdf
13. Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43-69.
14. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2010). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15. Winkle-Wagner, R., & Locks, A. M. (2014). Diversity and inclusion on campus: supporting racially and ethnically underrepresented students. New York: Routledge.