Lauren Hammer April 1, 2013 Affirmative Action: Should the color of your skin determine your education?

Just recently, cases have once again been brought to the Supreme Court level over the constitutionality of considering race during the college admissions process. Affirmative action was implemented in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy as a means to achieve non-discrimination in educational and occupational environments, but the legality and success of this program have been questioned time and time again (Slater). Is this policy really solving discrimination or just widening the learning gap? With minority students falling behind, this program seems to be sabotaging their intended success, creating reverse discrimination, and falling short of its true goal. A central drawback of affirmative action has been dubbed Mismatch Theory. Mismatch theory is the idea that this policy is harming those it was intended to help by placing students in programs that exceed their ability level (Slater). Middle of the road minority students, who may not have the proper education or learning strategies to compete at the elite level of an Ivy league university, are getting accepted and falling behind. It has been proven that students who are admitted under affirmative action end up graduating at the bottom of their class (Espenshade). A significant study conducted by Richard H. Sander, a UCLA law professor, in 2005 truly captured the negative effects of affirmative action due to a mismatch of skills. In his study, Sanders observed that law students who gain access to a top

school primarily due to nonacademic motives will suffer down the road with higher attrition rates, lower pass rates on the bar, [and] problems in the job market (Slater). This insight was supported by a prior study which followed the

performance of 27,000 incoming law students and how they faired due to their past educational experience. Experimenters created a questionnaire asking if students got into their first choice law school and whether or not they decided to attend that school. Of the 2,000 African American students polled, 689 were accepted into their first choice law program and of that only 177 opted for their second choice. Following mismatch theory, these students who opted for their second choice were therefore better suited academically for their school and would have higher success rates (Slater). Mismatch Theory shows how this policy is especially detrimental because the students learning is suffering, subsequently impacting them down the road in attaining a career. Clarence Thomas, chairmen of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, made a comment supporting the negative spiral created from a lesser education saying, I watched the operation of such affirmative action policies when I was in college and I watched the destruction of many kids as a result (Slater). Affirmative action does set in place certain guidelines for equal employment opportunities, but if students are coming out of college less qualified, it is in turn hurting the economy and nation as a whole. Several recent cases have been made with the complaint that affirmative action is creating reverse discrimination simultaneously. Reverse Discrimination, although a questionable term, is defined as the unfair treatment of members of

majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities (Does Affirmative Action Punish Whites?). An example of preferential or lenient treatment to minority students was analyzed in Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radfords book No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life , Espenshade claims that an African American student with an identical application to a white student receives the equivalent of a 310-point bump in SAT scores (Espenshade). Because universities and businesses are required to be preferential at times to minority members, possibly more qualified whites are being overlooked. Just last year, a case was brought to the Supreme Court alleging reverse discrimination. In the case Fisher vs. University of Texas, Abigail Fisher, a white student, just barely missed the Texas top ten percent law, which generally states if you are in the top 10% of your high school graduating class you can have automatic admission to any Texas public university (Espenshade). Fisher was then denied admission once race was evaluated. If students who meet all the requirements for admission are being barred due to race, isnt this further stimulating discrimination? Another leading failure of this policy is that race-based affirmative action is inadequate and falls short of its prescribed purpose. Affirmative action is supposed to generate diversity as well as financially aid minority students, but it is failing to do so and even creating a back door approach to simply enforce its purpose. Professor Sean Reardon at Stanford University conducted a study in 2011 confirming that this policy does not do enough to promote racial diversity and lacks

even more importantly in creating income diversity. Reardon found that income plays an even bigger role in test scores and student success than race; the higher the income of a studentthe better they perform (Deruy). Universities are in turn admitting wealthy minority students, who arent truly the ones affected by inequality, which affirmative action was targeted to help. Reardon asserts that all that results from affirmative action today is surface-level diversity which masks, but does not fix, the central problem of discrimination (Deruy). An additional shortcoming is the concern of how affirmative action is being implemented. Although specified quotas for minority students have been dubbed further discrimination and ruled illegal, activists believe universities are quietly using quotas for admission purposes. Because it is required by this policy that a certain number of jobs or admission spots are set aside, a back door is essentially created to implement a minority requirement without using the word quota (Liptak). Basically affirmative action tells universities and businesses to be mindful of their diversity, while not going as far to ensure schools follow through. It is obvious that affirmative action is outdated and causing more problems than it is solving, but what can be done? Various solutions have been proposed to fix this dying policy but there are two specifically that show the most promise: reforming the policy or nixing it all together. The reformation of affirmative action policy is probably the method most agreed upon. An affirmative action that is attentive to diversity but focuses on the deep-rooted issue of class inequality in education would undoubtedly be more successful. For example, in further research by Sean Reardon he found that states

who have banned race-based affirmative action, such as New Hampshire, California, and six others, have been widely successful by taking up more of a class consideration technique with no evident decline in diversity (Deruy). Class inequality is also directly linked to the learning gap, so focusing on income and poverty will benefit this area as well. This revised policy would benefit everyone because a decent percentage of those in poverty are white, so there would no longer be grounds for reverse discrimination or discrimination in general. A second reformative solution lies in focusing on better lower level education systems for the poor. It is proven that when entering kindergarten, black children are about one year behind white children. When they graduate from high school, black teenagers are four years behind white teenagers (Espenshade). With advanced facilities, longer school days or even years, more college geared classes, and higher educated teachers, the result will likely be a trickle down effect improving all education systems and closing the educational gap (Deruy). This idea of improving school systems was also brought up in a 2009 Pew Research Survey and was valued equally as high by minorities and whites. This solution would also correct the major fear that racial diversity would not be preserved due to racial differences in skills and knowledge if affirmative action were to be completely removed. Restructuring lower level education would overall be an effective longterm solution with vast other benefits, such as improving both the economy and society. Courts and minorities alike are in utter panic over the idea of getting rid of affirmative action, but this might actually be a beneficial resolution. As stated

earlier, eight states have banned affirmative action and have had almost no decline in diversity. By implementing other policies and focusing on deeper issues these states have managed to promote diversity without the involvement of skin color. For example, California has implemented Proposition 209 which effectively prevents universities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, or ethnicity (Liptak). Diversity ratios have also risen from the original implementation in 1996. The California system has most notably been more successful in graduating math and science majors, the most problematic majors among minority students for attrition rates (Slater). Prop 209 was voted on by a majority of citizens, approximately 54.6%, in 1996 and continues to remain quite popular. Qualified students are now gaining admission regardless of their background or individual differences and succeeding. Race-based affirmative action has reigned far too long and is sabotaging the students it was designed to help, propelling reverse discrimination, and lacking in effectiveness. With students attending elite universities beyond their learning capabilities the upsides of diversity are highly outweighed by minority strife down the road. The socioeconomic gap should be the primary concern for it will better low income households as well as stimulate diversity and close the learning gap. In trying to make up for the United States long history of racial discrimination, affirmative action is creating more problems than it is fixing.

Works Cited Deruy, Emily. "Affirmative Action Cases Could Broadly Impact College Admissions." ABC News. ABC, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. "Does Affirmative Action Punish Whites?" NBC News. NBC News, 28 Apr. 2009. Web. Espenshade, Thomas J. "Moving Beyond Affirmative Action." The New York Times. The New York Times, 4 Oct. 2012. Web. Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Takes New Case on Affirmative Action." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2013. Web. Slater, Dan. "Does Affirmative Action Do What It Should?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2013. Web.