How does affirmative action work in college admissions

Today, less than thirty per cent of all university faculty at Stanford are women, and seven per cent are classified as underrepresented minorities. At Harvard, twenty-seven per cent of tenured faculty are women, and eight per cent are underrepresented minorities. On the other hand, student bodies, where race- and gender-conscious admissions policies can have an effect more quickly, have diversified. In , eighty-three per cent of university students were white; in , fifty-seven per cent were white.

The percentage of black students in that period increased from ten to fourteen; the percentage of students that the government categorizes as Hispanic increased from less than four to more than eighteen.

The percentage of black and Latinx graduates as opposed to enrollees also increased although graduation rates for both groups are lower than for whites. Did affirmative-action admissions help? Starting in the mid-nineties, opponents of affirmative action were able to get laws passed prohibiting the use of race in admissions at public universities in several states, including Michigan, Washington, and California. The top public universities in those states tried to attract minority students by other means, but Urofsky says that the percentage of black and Hispanic students has dropped significantly.

Do students admitted under affirmative-action criteria benefit from their educations? Historically, black students as a group have tended to underperform academically—to get lower grades than their SAT scores predict. So do varsity athletes. As many writers have pointed out, when we are considering colleges and jobs, there is a pipeline problem. They went to the same high schools that their brothers did and most of them probably got better grades. The success of affirmative action in employment and university admissions has not eliminated the education and income gaps between whites and blacks.

Although the poverty rate for blacks and Hispanics has dropped some since , it is still more than double the rate for whites. Americans of color are starting from much farther behind. Millions never get on board a train that most whites were born on. The Supreme Court case that admissions offices rely on today is Regents of the University of California v. It was decided in , and, despite several attempts to relitigate it, it is still the law of the land. Bakke is a good example of the jurisprudential confusion around affirmative action: the Court managed to produce six opinions in that case.

The plurality opinion, by Lewis Powell, struck down an admissions program at the University of California at Davis School of Medicine, from which Allan Bakke, a white man, had been twice rejected, but it upheld the right of schools to use race-conscious admissions programs. The problem at Davis was that the medical school basically ran two admissions processes, one for everybody and one that effectively considered only minority applicants, for whom sixteen places were set aside.

Bakke was able to show that his record was superior to the records of some of the students who had been admitted through the special program. The Davis program was obviously not narrowly tailored.

One consideration that the university offered in the way of compelling state interest was its belief that minority M. Powell found no evidentiary basis for this, and it was arguably a racist assumption.

The school could have investigated whether applicants had worked with underserved communities in the past. They did not, and Powell suggested that such a standard might be a better proxy than race.

Admissions programs determined by race are in violation of both the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws racial discrimination in institutions that receive federal funding. Powell argued, however, that another right was in play: the First Amendment; specifically, the right of academic freedom.

There is no constitutional right of academic freedom, but Powell cited a case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, in which Felix Frankfurter, in a concurring opinion, quoted South African jurists to the effect that the principle of academic freedom allows a university to determine who will teach its classes and who will sit in its classrooms.

The Michigan case, Grutter v. Bollinger, in , was basically a relitigation of Bakke. As was Fisher v. Texas, in , and the second round of that case, known as Fisher II, in The Fisher cases involved a white woman who was turned down for admission to the University of Texas at Austin, U.

Each time, the Court upheld the constitutionality of using race as a factor in admissions, but they were close calls. The vote in Fisher II was 4—3. Affirmative action side steps that entirely and helps people like me, who frankly didn't really need the help.

Even with affirmative action, a New York Times analysis of data from the National Center for Education Statistics found Black and Hispanic students were more underrepresented at top colleges in than almost 40 years ago.

Growing up, similar comments from teachers left her on the fence about affirmative action. Poon's parents emigrated from Hong Kong to Massachusetts and she grew up in a predominantly White working-class community outside Springfield. Poon's academic research focuses on racial politics, college access, higher education organization, and affirmative action policy.

The Supreme Court rulings in UC Regents v Bakke in and Gratz v Bollinger in changed the way affirmative action programs could be implemented. The aim of affirmative action shifted from remedying past acts of discrimination to fostering diversity itself as a primary goal. Colleges can't use racial quotas with set-asides for women and underrepresented groups or automatic point systems for race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. Race can be considered but only as one of many factors, and colleges largely refer to the admissions practices as "holistic" or "race-conscious.

There's talent that goes way beyond test scores and grades. Poon interviewed 50 college admissions professionals as part of her research. Since its introduction into the college admissions process, students from all backgrounds have fought for or against affirmative action both in the court system and the mainstream media. Affirmative action is amorphous in its application, meaning that not all colleges and universities approach the idea of processing applicants the same way.

At its core, affirmative action presents minorities and students from lower income areas the chance to earn a spot at prestigious schools, providing them with an education that will both serve them in the real world and also ensure the school is a diverse and welcoming space to all students.

The consideration of race is the most debated part of affirmative action. Many critics state that race should not play a factor in who is accepted into a school and that by using race as a factor, schools are letting down students who are more than qualified to take their place within its programs. The truth is more complex; many schools use race as a moderate factor while other schools, which are trying to improve diversity on campus, may utilize it more often.

Forbes published an article stating that while race may play a role in affirmative action admissions processes, it can also be used to benefit white students from lower income areas. Especially when overqualified people from the same school with the same resources get accepted over another kid with a different race. Of course, the greatest thing would be directly trying to help Latinx and Black kids become just as competitive in the process, but the government seems to think those races are incapable of having the comparable qualifications, which is a product of them not putting resources or time into those communities.

You are incredibly thoughtful and present such salient points. If you have any ideas on how to create a better work ethic for students, I would be delighted if you would share. The most accurate way to describe Prop. The universities employ all kinds of proxy schemes to admit more of the their preferenced races and ethnicities. Post , they ran models to try to gauge their effectiveness. Imagine doing that for white students.

Paraphrasing the old racial complaint, these were neutral on their face but discriminatory in intent. I heartily agree with comments of MH. Returning to race-based selection in the United States of America in Year ? The truth is "affirmative action" feels good for the architects, but it creates lasting doubt about self-worth in recipients and engenders resentment and disdain from those who don't benefit from it.

Make better K public education in California … Read More. Make better K public education in California a top priority — prepare, focus and spend as if excellent public schooling were a space program or a foreign war or an economic bailout — as if our future depended on it. For one hundred years [ ], California taxpayers funded the zero tuition, world class University of California, Berkeley, for their children. How was that possible?

Today, Californians and others can't afford to send their children to University. What happened to state funding? Here is my theory: The essential bases for the lack of current funding are: the electorate became fragmented [e pluribus multum and a resultant diminution of "sense of collective responsibility"], California became overpopulated, the additional population … Read More. As a consequence [somewhat simplified] State funds previously used to support the University were diverted to increased funding of K12, to prisons, and to welfare.

Our state legislators are largely ambitious politicians looking for re-election and higher office. They strongly prefer to fund new programs that they can claim credit for rather than proven existing programs that benefit people. They are certainly not diverting money to K We should emulate Texas and make the legislature part time. It's easy to tell when when someone is writing fake news to deceive the casual reader as they use enrollment data rather than admissions data.

Colleges and Universities only control admissions, they have can only wait to see who choses to attend. For example let's look at the statement "Black student enrollment in CSU and UC remains lower than their share of high school graduates in California. For Fall Well over half of admitted African American chose not to attend. Well prepared African American students have numerous options at private colleges that may offer room and board and perhaps a stipend.

Just because African American students have so many options is not an indictment of our admissions system. Anytime you see someone writing about admissions and then switching to enrollment data without noting the difference they are likely intentionally deceptive. It also deflects from the real issues concerning local social and educational dysfunction.

But politicians and higher ed admin lack the honesty and courage needed to focus on the change needed to affect the outcomes they say they desire.

If it does not have the capacity to educate all students then it should subsidize students to go to private or other public universities. Totally agree Paul. It is also unconscionable to discriminate against another ethnicity, Asians, because they made sacrifices and worked hard in K to get into a UC.

Some say it is even against the milestone Civil Rights Act of !