The Supreme Court propelled the debate over affirmative action into the spotlight by announcing on Feb. 21 it would hear the case of a white female who claims she was not admitted to the University of Texas because of her race.
The University of Texas relies on a multifaceted admissions process. The top 10 percent of students at each high school in Texas are automatically admitted to UT. Anyone who is not initially admitted can then apply – an application process for which race is used as one of the factors to select students. Abigail Fisher’s court case has hurtled to the country’s highest court, stating that she was rejected from UT because she is white and that the university prioritized accepting prospective students of other races.
There would be dire consequences if the high court were to ban – or even further limit – the consideration of race in college admissions.
If the Supreme Court rules that considering race in admissions is illegal or unconstitutional, GW would no longer be able to foster racial diversity on campus.
Achieving a racially diverse student body is important for both moral and practical reasons. At GW we value giving students from all backgrounds the opportunity to excel. We benefit as a university from having such diversity, as it allows us to become more open-minded individuals and learn to collaborate with people of all backgrounds.
It is easy to point to the election of the first African American president and argue that all people, regardless of their race, have a fair shot.
But anyone who makes that assertion is surely not living in reality.
The unemployment rate for African Americans is nearly double the national average and the per capita income of minorities is drastically lower than that of their Caucasian contemporaries.
Such differences between whites and minorities unequivocally suggest that we have not achieved the equal society we seek.
Some opponents of race-conscious affirmative action believe that looking at an applicant’s socioeconomic status would be a fairer way of achieving a diverse student body. They argue that because there is a correlation between race and income, looking at the latter will effectively lead to a racially diverse student body.
But such an approach would be insufficient. Efforts to improve diversity through solely considering economic status don't work out; more white people fall below the poverty line than people of any other race. Denying the admissions team the right to look at race would hinder their ability to ensure enough minority students are being admitted.
Although race-conscious admissions are an imperfect solution, it is still recognized by GW as a useful tool in helping to diversify the student body.
The University uses a holistic approach to evaluate potential students, including looking at an applicant’s race. Because GW seeks to have a diverse incoming class, being a racial minority might enhance an applicant’s chances of being admitted.
The harsh consequences of using a colorblind process were seen when the University of California at Berkeley looked at socioeconomic status instead of race and African American enrollment in the entering class fell by about 60 percent.
The Supreme Court has served a fundamental role in advancing racial equality in our nation’s schools. Landmark rulings such Brown v. Board of Education have allowed us to recover from the original sins of slavery and Jim Crow. Hopefully this same court does not reverse these advances and ban race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions.
Phillip Enlser, a senior majoring in political science, is a Hatchet columnist.
I’m not sure what the justification is that you see for this kind of racial discrimination. Remedying societal discrimination? But the Supreme Court has rejected that. Achieving a “diversity” of backgrounds and perspectives? But race is a poor proxy for that.
In any event, you ignore the costs of using racial preferences: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves, as well as future employers, clients, and patients; it fosters a victim mindset, removes the incentive for academic excellence, and encourages separatism; it compromises the academic mission of the university and lowers the overall academic quality of the student body; it creates pressure to discriminate in grading and graduation; it breeds hypocrisy within the school; it encourages a scofflaw attitude among college officials; it mismatches students and institutions, guaranteeing failure for many of the former; it papers over the real social problem of why so many African Americans and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership. Q.E.D.: Racial preferences ought not to be used.
Mr. Clegg, speaking as a minority, likely admitted to GW with some consideration for my racial makeup and a variety of other factors, I can say that your analysis of its effects is dead wrong.
Creates resentment? I was received by all of my classmates and partners in extracurricular activities with nothing but an open mind and arms. Stigmatized in the eyes of my classmates? Each member of my courses was held in equal regard by our teachers and fellow classmates, and our ability to contribute academically to this university was measured by our performance upon being given that opportunity. Encourages separatism? Perhaps you have not seen the tremendous progress made by GW’s Multicultural Student Services Center in encouraging collaboration between every kind of student organization and the free and open way that students of mixed backgrounds interact with each other. And I can tell you that my strong performance and Latin Honors upon graduation were not unusual for people who worked as hard as my classmates and me. While I agree that race is not the only proxy for diversity, I can attest firsthand to the way that it enriched the experience of my fellow classmates by allowing those who might not have associated under ordinary, “business as usual” circumstances.
You accuse racial considerations, and by proxy Affirmative Action, of encouraging a “victim mindset” amongst its participants; yet the only victim mindset apparent to me is the one you have assumed by ignoring its overwhelming positive effects in favor of non-existent negative ones. In short, universities should continue to consider multiple aspects of a student’s application, race included, in admissions.
Jordan, your personal story is an encouraging and inspiring description of the opportunities afforded to all GW students, and is a testament to the GW community’s commitment to and acceptance of racial (and non-racial) diversity. It also reflects the hard work you engaged in at college and your fortune in having both the skills and support needed for you to academically succeed as an individual.
Still, I don’t know how similar GW’s policies are to those of other schools, or how similar you are to the average beneficiary of such policies.
Out of all the admitted students this past year, 28% of those accepted into GW were multicultural students–only a 1% increase from the year before. How much would that percentage shrink if GW didn’t emphasize diversity in its admissions?
It would shrink by the amount of people who deserve to get in based on their merits subtracted from the total amount including those who only got in based on diversity.
Excellent article. I completely agree.
Thank you for your support.
Phillip-
I do not belive a single thing you said is defensible. Diversity is just an excuse, and a poor excuse, for racial discrimination. I would like to understand the uniquely black perspectives on science, math and engineering. Does a black student get a different answer (and evidently equally acceptable) when determining the derivative of a function? Does coming from an inter-city school give one particular insight when balancing a chemical equation? Please explain how racial diversity enhances the education of the majority of college students.
Agreed. In fact, students who do not get in based on their merits alone tend to negatively affect the academic experience of their peers, particularly when working in group projects since their abilities are not up to par. These are simply facts.
are legacy clauses also a poor excuse for racial discrimination?
Did anyone say anything about legacy clauses?
Mr. Clegg is correct. Our society is built upon the rights of the individual, not communities. Helping one race and hindering another, no matter how noble the intent, puts individuals at disadvantage due to their race, and that is simply wrong.
So by everyone’s logic, the only thing that universities should look at is your SAT Score and high School GPA? Bar Socioeconomic status, race, the circumstances in which you were raised, immigrant status, or anything else.
Because, as Joe Simmons has already pointed out, none of these things matter when balancing a chemical equation (never mind that the engineering school is one of GW’s smaller schools) or studying the largest major at GW, Political Science (because, as we all know, politics is the same whether you come from Rancho Cucamonga, CA or Newark, NJ).
My point is, higher education would be an aristocratic institution most easily accessible to those students who had access to more education resources. The primary and secondary education systems of Washington, DC, for example, are markedly different from those available to higher-income(According to the American Community Survey white households on average make $19k more than black households and $13k more than hispanic ones) children. Without an emphasis admitting students of different racial and socioeconomic makeups, higher education would be a barrier to, not a tool of, of upward mobility.
I also wonder why the notion that non-competitive minority students are being admitted is so pervasive? Do you all think that schools admit students that are wholly unqualified?
This could not be more misguided, and quite simply, insulting. If this was true, then the majority, if not all, of the beneficiaries of these policies would graduate below all those admitted without regard for SES, race, or upbringing. This is not true.
I find it ridiculous that the people who advocate “colorblind” admissions because they think that affirmative action is racist are consistently the people that have benefited from white privilege throughout their entire lives without ever realizing it. You think that affirmative action is racist against white people? What was your neighborhood like growing up? What about your high school? I’m sure the majority of the people reading this are the product of white privilege and newsflash, white privilege is racist. Being a product of white privilege clearly shows that our country is still dealing from structural inequalities that adversely affect members of minority races and that policies need to be in place to deal with this.
As Jordan says, there is a pervasive belief that higher education institutions admit minorities that are wholly unqualified and thus undeserving of the spot they are given when in fact their scores are often slightly lower. In reality, many have achieved much more in terms of the barriers they’ve needed to overcome than any well-to-do white person.
As a high school teacher in a school in one of the worst neighborhoods in Brooklyn, I can tell you that the negative influences on my students lives are like nothing I’ve ever experienced growing up in my land of white privilege. If you were to come look at the reality of the situation, where some high schoolers can barely read and write, many are members of gangs and have been in prison, many are getting shot and killed or doing the shooting and killing, and all of this is happening while so many are having children of their own, it would be much more clear that it is insulting to say that a Black or Hispanic kid growing up in these neighborhoods with these influences who has managed to score a 1350 on his SATs and avoid this type of toxic environment is not as well-qualified as a white kid growing up in the suburbs with a 1400 on his SATs. Plenty of studies show that these students are the students that go home after graduating and make positive influences in their neighborhoods (minority doctors are more likely to set up clinics in minority communities, etc.)
Whether affirmative action is the BEST policy to deal with this, I don’t particularly agree. As a high school teacher, I believe dramatically decreasing class sizes, mandatory pre-Kindergarten programs focused around building early literacy skills, and free educational after-school activities and summer camps to economically (racially) disadvantaged people are better policies in the long run. But since the government refuses to acknowledge these solutions and instead would rather blame teachers for shortcomings that it could put programs in place to fix, affirmative action is at least a step in the right direction as it is maintaining that past racism existed. But current racism continues, inequality gaps widen, and eliminating affirmative action makes it seem like all is well. And trust me, it isn’t.
Studies have shown that students admitted under affirmative action programs graduate at a lower rate than other students. If the AA students were the academic equivalent of others, AA would not be needed. I have no problem with admitting students with somewhat lesser qualifications if they have overcome substantial obstacles. However, simply being a minority is not enough. Most of the AA admits are from middle and upper class families.
Phil, the issue is not black and white. You seem to think that African-Americans are the only ones affected by race considerations. The Supreme Court case out of University of Texas is more about balancing Latino and Asian populations. Studies have shown that an Asian student applying to UT has a much higher standard for admission than a Latino student. This is simply not fair to an Asian student to be denied entry to the University simply because of his/her race when they have more qualifications than another student who happens to be from a more desirable minority race from an admissions standpoint.
Indeed, JR, Affirmative Action is more than just race. The biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action is white women, and I think we tend to often ignore that.
I do agree that Asian-Americans do have a voice in Affirmative Action policies. However, as an Asian Americans, I question your claims of Affirmative Action and it’s effects on the Asian American population. Yes, numerous studies have shown that an Asian-American student needs to go beyond the regular standards to be admitted into an elite university–and that is unfair. But I question whether that effect is a result of Affirmative Action policies or just a unwillingness to admit large numbers Asian-American students. Historically, Affirmative Action policies have largely benefited Asian-American populations. There were not large numbers of Asian-Americans in academic institutions before Affirmative Action as there are now.
Furthermore, having diverse populations on campus helps all students of color–regardless if they are Black, Latino, or Asian. It ensures that minority students have safe havens to express their thoughts and actions, especially at predominantly white institutions like GW.