Can the Affirmative Action system be fixed? This is the question I seek to answer in this blog.
For many years affirmative action has attempted to increase the diversity in universities. But it has failed in impacting the bottom line: minority graduation rates. Much of this is because affirmative action policies often lead to mismatch. Mismatch is where minority students receiving the 'benefits' of the policy are often underprepared for the rigors of the school they are attending. This often leads to unproportionally high drop-out rates among African Americans and Hispanics.
Another problem with the current system is that it seems to give wealthier minorities a leg up over poorer minorities. A constitutional policy needs to be implemented to reduce minority drop-out rates while not giving an unfair advantage to wealthier minority students. Affirmative action polices are only constitutional if the application for each student is looked at separately and equally. And only then can the applications of minority students be given additional consideration. This prevents seats being saved for minorities - which is unconstitutional.
On first glance, it seems obvious to make affirmative action a strictly economic affair. Students whose families make less than X would get an additional consideration on their university application. However, this would still lead to a mismatch- the poorer students would still be less prepared than the wealthier students.
I propose the current affirmative action policies for universities should be abolished. If we are to design an effective affirmative action policy - it can't lead to mismatch. So maybe schools should identify the most intelligent and highest-achieving, low-income students, below some threshold, from the start of their education. Perhaps this is done by intelligence testing or some other measure. The schools would then meet with the students and their families maybe once a month or some other specified time. This would serve to start a relationship and for the schools to be sure the low-income students are staying on track. If there is some discrepancy that needs to be worked out - the teachers would work one-on-one with the students until a benchmark is met. This setup would continue until the students apply to college. When the next step - below - can be applied.
To minimize the mismatch that occurs now, we need a nation-wide, government-sponsored database. The proposed database would keep track of all public school students grades and standardized test scores. The database could be used to recommend students to universities by their their grades and test scores along with education interests and preferences about school size and other things. This would be done by compiling data on what universities students with similar grades and test scores have done well at. To measure where college students have done well - public universities could compile the grades of students. Of the students whose grades and test scores don't merit the attendance of a university they would be recommended to go to a trade school by this free program.
If these two steps were implemented - the current system would be greatly improved. First, more lower income students would be attending universities that match their current education levels - this would aid in preventing mismatch. Second, the low-income students who were mentored would be able to compete with higher income students who weren't mentored for spots at top universities - increasing economic diversity and racial diversity as a byproduct.
The benefits that come from this implementation are that the new program would be a government poverty program rather than a race-based program. Making college admissions more about competition and less about race. This would lead to better academic preparation and as discussed in a previous blog, when academic preparation levels are matched - it is easier for biracial friendships to occur. These biracial friendship result in less self-segregation of minority groups.
The only downside to this proposal it that it does not treat everyone as equals - the same problem with the current institution. Other downsides include the question of why the government is allowed to choose the students that are the highest achieving or that have the most ability.
What are your thoughts - is this a viable solution?
Sources:
Brain
http://npc.umich.edu/poverty/
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/26/ut-supreme-court-we-need-affirmative-action/
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Affirmative Action No. 3
What's the point of affirmative action? The point of affirmative action is to promote equal opportunity and racial integration of minorities to help mend past discriminatory wrongs. Is it doing what it was meant to do?
Before addressing this question, we must first examine the current state of affirmative action. The current affirmative action policies, specifically at Universities, give underrepresented populations a "fastpass" to acceptance even at the most selective institutions. This fastpass is given by lowering the test score standards for acceptance and considering the applications of "diverse" candidates more than once. According to the Atlantic, "At the University of Texas [...] the typical black student receiving a race preference [is] placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at 89th percentile.
No:
According to the Atlantic, affirmative action leads to several drawbacks most specifically a mismatch between the student and the school. This is what's known as Mismatch Theory. I although being white have experienced something similar to mismatch. When I started high school in the 9th grade I was put in a class called "Algebra II Honors - Math Team." I got a D on the first exam. I got a D on the second exam. I soon realized I was the worst student in the class. The material was being taught at a pace I couldn't comprehend. I had no idea what the teacher was talking about and I would daydream in class because of it - breeding even worse performance on the next exam. My poor performance in this class made me think I should switch out of the class. With the help of my guidance counselor I was able to switch to the less advanced: Algebra II Honors. In this class I was now at the top. "The exams were handed out in order of grade, mine was always one of the first three. I knew everything the teacher was saying, I was confident to answer questions, I felt unstoppable. This is the idea of mismatch theory. When your abilities don't match the abilities of the average student - performance goes down.
Students who are given racial preference are often accepted and attend universities where their test scores, a measure of ability, don't match up with the average student. These good-intentioned policies can and often do lead to poor outcomes for those "benefiting" from affirmative action policies. And statistics defend this statement.
Is it worth it?
This answer to this question becomes easier to find with the following framing questions:
Do some minority students succeed with affirmative action programs? Yes
Are some minority students harmed by affirmative action programs? Yes
If it becomes evident that more students are harmed by AA polices than are helped, then we'll know that AA is not worth it. So to try to get at that answer let's ask the question: what happens if we get rid of it?
This is what happened with the Proposition 209 in California. Proposition 209, instituted in 1997, ended all policies of affirmative action involved in university admissions. The immediate effects of Proposition 209 were that at UCLA, for example, black and Hispanic freshman enrollment dropped by 50% and 25% respectively. But the long term effects, 4 years down the road - blacks and Hispanics were still graduating at the same rate pre-prop 209. More qualified black and Hispanic students accepted offers of admission from UCLA in the years following prop 209. The drop-out rate declined for minority student post-prop 209 (the Atlantic).
No. The current form of affirmative action is not worth it. It puts minorities in schools where it is harder for them to succeed and it doesn't effect the bottom line: graduation rates. The question now is how can it be fixed? That question will hopefully be answered in the next blog - the final blog.
Before addressing this question, we must first examine the current state of affirmative action. The current affirmative action policies, specifically at Universities, give underrepresented populations a "fastpass" to acceptance even at the most selective institutions. This fastpass is given by lowering the test score standards for acceptance and considering the applications of "diverse" candidates more than once. According to the Atlantic, "At the University of Texas [...] the typical black student receiving a race preference [is] placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at 89th percentile.
No:
According to the Atlantic, affirmative action leads to several drawbacks most specifically a mismatch between the student and the school. This is what's known as Mismatch Theory. I although being white have experienced something similar to mismatch. When I started high school in the 9th grade I was put in a class called "Algebra II Honors - Math Team." I got a D on the first exam. I got a D on the second exam. I soon realized I was the worst student in the class. The material was being taught at a pace I couldn't comprehend. I had no idea what the teacher was talking about and I would daydream in class because of it - breeding even worse performance on the next exam. My poor performance in this class made me think I should switch out of the class. With the help of my guidance counselor I was able to switch to the less advanced: Algebra II Honors. In this class I was now at the top. "The exams were handed out in order of grade, mine was always one of the first three. I knew everything the teacher was saying, I was confident to answer questions, I felt unstoppable. This is the idea of mismatch theory. When your abilities don't match the abilities of the average student - performance goes down.
Students who are given racial preference are often accepted and attend universities where their test scores, a measure of ability, don't match up with the average student. These good-intentioned policies can and often do lead to poor outcomes for those "benefiting" from affirmative action policies. And statistics defend this statement.
- "Black college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes blacks to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites(the Atlantic)."
- "Blacks who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched (Increasing Faculty Diversity: The Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students)."
- "Just over 50 percent of the black [college students] surveyed had grades that were in the lowest 20 percent (The James G. Martin Center)."
Is it worth it?
This answer to this question becomes easier to find with the following framing questions:
Do some minority students succeed with affirmative action programs? Yes
Are some minority students harmed by affirmative action programs? Yes
This is what happened with the Proposition 209 in California. Proposition 209, instituted in 1997, ended all policies of affirmative action involved in university admissions. The immediate effects of Proposition 209 were that at UCLA, for example, black and Hispanic freshman enrollment dropped by 50% and 25% respectively. But the long term effects, 4 years down the road - blacks and Hispanics were still graduating at the same rate pre-prop 209. More qualified black and Hispanic students accepted offers of admission from UCLA in the years following prop 209. The drop-out rate declined for minority student post-prop 209 (the Atlantic).
No. The current form of affirmative action is not worth it. It puts minorities in schools where it is harder for them to succeed and it doesn't effect the bottom line: graduation rates. The question now is how can it be fixed? That question will hopefully be answered in the next blog - the final blog.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Affirmative Action No. 2
In the last blog we talked about the history of affirmative action's (AA) implementation. In this blog, I want to talk about where affirmative action stands today. Specifically, its constitutionality and ethical concerns that are created by it.
The cases brought to the supreme court or the lower, court of appeals generally are of one flavor. A white plaintiff complains that they have been disenfranchised by AA policies on the basis of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Then the court decides whether these AA policies are constitutional or not.
So before we look at examples, we must first understand what both the Equal Protections Clause and Title VI state. The Equal Protections Clause states:
Let's look at two notable supreme court cases regarding AA that were both decided in 2003:
Gratz V. Bollinger and Grutter V. Bollinger.
The reason both of these are V. Bollinger is because both took place at the University of Michigan, where Lee Bollinger was the President, and therefore the defendant.
Gratz V. Bollinger asked the question:
Did the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in the undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The answer in this case was yes. Why? So at the time University of Michigan Admissions was using a point system that gave racially diverse applicants 20 points. These additional points made admission almost automatic for these applicants. The University of Michigan was in effect, holding seats for racially diverse applicants and practically was a racial quota. This is against the EPC and Title VI and these policies were deemed unconstitutional.
Grutter V. Bollinger asked the question:
Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The answer in this case was no. Why? So at the time University of Michigan Law School considered each applicant separately, with an additional consideration for minorities. This meant the race was used as a method to increase diversity. And in the previous blog, we talked about Regents of UC V. Bakke. This case set a precedent for allowing AA for the purpose of diversity because diversity was seen as in the interest of the US government. For this reason the policies were deemed constitutional.
The reason I chose these two cases was that the justices on the supreme court remained the same, between these two cases and the positions of these justices likely didn't change in one year. The only variable changing is the type of admissions policy, making this a good comparison for understanding. We now understand that racial quotas are strictly unconstitutional. But if the applicant's race is considered as part of their holistic person for the purpose of achieving diversity it is constitutional. And as a reminder EPC and Title VI do not have to be considered for companies and universities not receiving federal dollars.
AA does have some ethical concerns along with the constitutionality concerns voiced above. A gain in opportunity for a minority, inherently leads to the loss of an opportunity for members of the majority. How do you decide whether a majority member deserves to lose their spot for a minority? Let's say hypothetically, a caucasian emigrates from Switzerland to the US. They apply to Penn State with competitive test scores, but they aren't admitted because a minority member replaced them through AA. The Swiss have had very little to do with the historical disenfranchisement of minorities in the US. Does the Swiss immigrant deserve to have their spot "taken?"
These questions are ideas for comments. For the next blog we'll crunch numbers to see if affirmative action really works.
The cases brought to the supreme court or the lower, court of appeals generally are of one flavor. A white plaintiff complains that they have been disenfranchised by AA policies on the basis of the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Then the court decides whether these AA policies are constitutional or not.
So before we look at examples, we must first understand what both the Equal Protections Clause and Title VI state. The Equal Protections Clause states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 (emphasis added).Title VI is very detailed but put simply, it prevents discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by entities receiving federal dollars, according to the EPA. It is an extension to the EPC.
Let's look at two notable supreme court cases regarding AA that were both decided in 2003:
Gratz V. Bollinger and Grutter V. Bollinger.
The reason both of these are V. Bollinger is because both took place at the University of Michigan, where Lee Bollinger was the President, and therefore the defendant.
Gratz V. Bollinger asked the question:
Did the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in the undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The answer in this case was yes. Why? So at the time University of Michigan Admissions was using a point system that gave racially diverse applicants 20 points. These additional points made admission almost automatic for these applicants. The University of Michigan was in effect, holding seats for racially diverse applicants and practically was a racial quota. This is against the EPC and Title VI and these policies were deemed unconstitutional.
Grutter V. Bollinger asked the question:
Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protections Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
The answer in this case was no. Why? So at the time University of Michigan Law School considered each applicant separately, with an additional consideration for minorities. This meant the race was used as a method to increase diversity. And in the previous blog, we talked about Regents of UC V. Bakke. This case set a precedent for allowing AA for the purpose of diversity because diversity was seen as in the interest of the US government. For this reason the policies were deemed constitutional.
The reason I chose these two cases was that the justices on the supreme court remained the same, between these two cases and the positions of these justices likely didn't change in one year. The only variable changing is the type of admissions policy, making this a good comparison for understanding. We now understand that racial quotas are strictly unconstitutional. But if the applicant's race is considered as part of their holistic person for the purpose of achieving diversity it is constitutional. And as a reminder EPC and Title VI do not have to be considered for companies and universities not receiving federal dollars.
AA does have some ethical concerns along with the constitutionality concerns voiced above. A gain in opportunity for a minority, inherently leads to the loss of an opportunity for members of the majority. How do you decide whether a majority member deserves to lose their spot for a minority? Let's say hypothetically, a caucasian emigrates from Switzerland to the US. They apply to Penn State with competitive test scores, but they aren't admitted because a minority member replaced them through AA. The Swiss have had very little to do with the historical disenfranchisement of minorities in the US. Does the Swiss immigrant deserve to have their spot "taken?"
These questions are ideas for comments. For the next blog we'll crunch numbers to see if affirmative action really works.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Affirmative Action No. 1
For this blog I hope to give a brief overview about the topic of Affirmative Action. This overview will go through the major events that have lead to affirmative action's controversy. All future blogs will be on this topic, but with greater detail than today's and less "lecturey." However, this blog will lay the groundwork of understanding for future blogs.
Affirmative action was born out of the Civil Rights Movement (National Conference of State Legislatures). “[It] intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups in education and employment” (National Conference of State Legislatures). Blacks were the first minority group affirmative action tried to help (National Conference of State Legislatures). President Kennedy, in his 1961 Executive Order 10925 termed the phrase affirmative action by “direct[ing] government contractors to take ‘affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin'" (National Conference of State Legislatures). What this language is saying is that minorities of race, creed, color, or national origin are to be given a higher representation in the workforce.
These executive orders were expanded on by Lyndon B. Johnson to include women ("The origins of affirmative action"). He also signed an executive order making affirmative action policies mandatory for government agencies and to include women as minorities ("The origins of affirmative action").
In the 70s, colleges were beginning to institute forms of affirmative action in their admissions policies (National Conference of State Legislatures). Some of the first affirmative action policies took shape as quotas, like at the University of California. In 1974 the University of California created a statewide policy to admit the same proportion of minorities that graduated from California high schools. This quota policy and similar policies at universities in the US increased minority enrollment in schools around the nation ("Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy").
However, there were several Supreme Court cases regarding reverse-discrimination that arose from the affirmative action policies that were being instituted at colleges and universities, such as DeFunsis V. Odegaard (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”). In this case, DeFunsis sued the University of Washington arguing that he was not accepted into the University of Washington Law School because he was white (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”). In April of 1974, the case was dismissed because Marco Defunsis had already been admitted to a different law program (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”).
In 1978, the Supreme Court case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court ruled that that leaving spots open for minority students was unconstitutional ("Affirmative action. History"). Bakke, a NASA engineer, applied to medical school, at the University of California at Davis, but alleged he was not accepted because the University left spots open for minority students with lower test scores ("Affirmative action History”). Bakke’s test scores were in fact higher than most of the minority students, who were accepted. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke that UC Davis should admit him ("Affirmative action History"). This decision also prevented schools from using quotas for affirmative action in the future. But it did not completely ban affirmative action, because it left room for schools to use affirmative action to increase diversity. (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”).
“The 1979 Supreme Court case, United Steel Workers AFL-CIO V. Weber ruled that affirmative action could be used temporarily to alleviate bias in employment as long as the process of affirmative action did not infringe on the rights of white employees” (“Affirmative action History").
Many were beginning to question Affirmative action in the mid-1980s. In several court cases, dissenters of Affirmative action attempted to get rid of Executive Order 10925, but failed (”Affirmative action History"). In 1995, President Clinton developed policy of “Mend it, don’t end it,” regarding affirmative action ("Affirmative action History"). Also in 1995, the Regents of the University of California ended affirmative action policies at all schools ("Affirmative action History"). The ending of affirmative action policies reduced minority enrollment 61% at the University of California Berkeley and 36% at the University of California Los Angeles ("Affirmative action History"). In 1995, the Congressional Glass Ceiling Commission reported that Affirmative action in corporate America was necessary to help women and other minorities have a chance of gaining employment, based on merit ("Affirmative action History").
Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, state electorates were beginning to strike down affirmative action (Brunner Rowen). The 1997 Proposition 209 ended all affirmative action policies in California (Brunner Rowen). The 1998 Initiative 200 ended affirmative action policies ended in Washington state. In 2000, Jeb Bush’s “One Florida” Initiative ended affirmative action policies in Florida (Brunner Rowen). However, in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policies regarding admissions, in the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger ("Affirmative action History"). The court ruled that affirmative action could not be used to right past wrongs, but “could be used to “promote diversity” ("Affirmative action History").
The last major Supreme Court case regarding Affirmative Action came last summer. Although the Fischer v. University of Texas was rejected it was still a major victory for those in support of the policy (Liptak). This case shows that there are still major questions to be discussed regarding Affirmative Action. It is the goal of this series of blogs to help uncover the answers to these questions.
Affirmative action was born out of the Civil Rights Movement (National Conference of State Legislatures). “[It] intended to provide equal opportunities for members of minority groups in education and employment” (National Conference of State Legislatures). Blacks were the first minority group affirmative action tried to help (National Conference of State Legislatures). President Kennedy, in his 1961 Executive Order 10925 termed the phrase affirmative action by “direct[ing] government contractors to take ‘affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin'" (National Conference of State Legislatures). What this language is saying is that minorities of race, creed, color, or national origin are to be given a higher representation in the workforce.
These executive orders were expanded on by Lyndon B. Johnson to include women ("The origins of affirmative action"). He also signed an executive order making affirmative action policies mandatory for government agencies and to include women as minorities ("The origins of affirmative action").
In the 70s, colleges were beginning to institute forms of affirmative action in their admissions policies (National Conference of State Legislatures). Some of the first affirmative action policies took shape as quotas, like at the University of California. In 1974 the University of California created a statewide policy to admit the same proportion of minorities that graduated from California high schools. This quota policy and similar policies at universities in the US increased minority enrollment in schools around the nation ("Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy").
However, there were several Supreme Court cases regarding reverse-discrimination that arose from the affirmative action policies that were being instituted at colleges and universities, such as DeFunsis V. Odegaard (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”). In this case, DeFunsis sued the University of Washington arguing that he was not accepted into the University of Washington Law School because he was white (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”). In April of 1974, the case was dismissed because Marco Defunsis had already been admitted to a different law program (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”).
In 1978, the Supreme Court case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the court ruled that that leaving spots open for minority students was unconstitutional ("Affirmative action. History"). Bakke, a NASA engineer, applied to medical school, at the University of California at Davis, but alleged he was not accepted because the University left spots open for minority students with lower test scores ("Affirmative action History”). Bakke’s test scores were in fact higher than most of the minority students, who were accepted. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke that UC Davis should admit him ("Affirmative action History"). This decision also prevented schools from using quotas for affirmative action in the future. But it did not completely ban affirmative action, because it left room for schools to use affirmative action to increase diversity. (“Challenging Race Sensitive Admission Policy”).
“The 1979 Supreme Court case, United Steel Workers AFL-CIO V. Weber ruled that affirmative action could be used temporarily to alleviate bias in employment as long as the process of affirmative action did not infringe on the rights of white employees” (“Affirmative action History").
Many were beginning to question Affirmative action in the mid-1980s. In several court cases, dissenters of Affirmative action attempted to get rid of Executive Order 10925, but failed (”Affirmative action History"). In 1995, President Clinton developed policy of “Mend it, don’t end it,” regarding affirmative action ("Affirmative action History"). Also in 1995, the Regents of the University of California ended affirmative action policies at all schools ("Affirmative action History"). The ending of affirmative action policies reduced minority enrollment 61% at the University of California Berkeley and 36% at the University of California Los Angeles ("Affirmative action History"). In 1995, the Congressional Glass Ceiling Commission reported that Affirmative action in corporate America was necessary to help women and other minorities have a chance of gaining employment, based on merit ("Affirmative action History").
Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, state electorates were beginning to strike down affirmative action (Brunner Rowen). The 1997 Proposition 209 ended all affirmative action policies in California (Brunner Rowen). The 1998 Initiative 200 ended affirmative action policies ended in Washington state. In 2000, Jeb Bush’s “One Florida” Initiative ended affirmative action policies in Florida (Brunner Rowen). However, in 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policies regarding admissions, in the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger ("Affirmative action History"). The court ruled that affirmative action could not be used to right past wrongs, but “could be used to “promote diversity” ("Affirmative action History").
The last major Supreme Court case regarding Affirmative Action came last summer. Although the Fischer v. University of Texas was rejected it was still a major victory for those in support of the policy (Liptak). This case shows that there are still major questions to be discussed regarding Affirmative Action. It is the goal of this series of blogs to help uncover the answers to these questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)