Running Head: Affirmative Action in Higher Education 1

Affirmative Action in Higher Education Administration:

Decisions for Diversity or Against Equality
Amanda Shalise Gilliland
Georgia Southern University












Affirmative Action in Higher Education 2

Abstract
Affirmative action is a topic that is regularly analyzed in higher education admissions
practices. It is the practice of accounting for a persons race, gender, ethnicity, or class when
placing consideration for admission or hiring. Higher education institutions have been impacted
by legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and litigation that has reached the U.S. Supreme
Court. Landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education, the Michigan Cases, University of
California Regents v. Bakke, and Hopwood v. Texas have shaped how institutions make
admissions decisions. The concept that minorities are limited in their ability to receive the
preparation to enter college because of their race is used as justification for affirmative action.
Litigation has shifted this concept and limited the use of race in admissions decisions to become
one factor of many to be evaluated. Questions to consider include: Is society diverse enough that
representation of race and ethnicity are available in the pool of applicants without having to give
preferential consideration to minorities? Is it necessary to have a multicultural experience in
order to assimilate into society after graduation? If minorities are afforded the same educational
opportunities today, should admissions offices be providing an advantage to a minority of lower
academic abilities? Affirmative action should ultimately be phased out of admissions practices.
Until the playing field is evened, some students will not be expected to and will not work to meet
standards set forth for all students.





Affirmative Action in Higher Education 3

The History of Affirmative Action: Legislation, Litigation, and Practices
Affirmative action is the policy of considering a candidates background including
qualities such as race, gender, and class when making admission or hiring decisions. Affirmative
action policy and practice, legislation, and litigation all have impacted higher education
institutions, specifically in admissions offices, across the country. The goal of affirmative
action-based practices in higher education is to create a diverse student body ensuring all races
are represented. To understand how affirmative action is implemented in higher education, it is
important to review the history of legislation as well as litigation surrounding the controversial
practice of making race-based admissions decisions.
In 1896 the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson created the separate but equal
standard that required equal accommodation for blacks as those provided to whites. This ruling
did not end segregation, but rather encouraged it (Moreno, 2003). In 1950, Sumner Browns
father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in a white elementary school in Topeka, Kansas but was
denied admission by the schools administration. Brown, along with 20 other plaintiffs filed suit
against the board of education. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled on this landmark case, Brown
v. Board of Education, that all schools should immediately be desegregated. It also refuted the
Plessy v. Ferguson ruling and stated, according to Loevys work, separate facilities were, by
definition, unequal and, therefore, unconstitutional (as cited in Moreno, 2003, p.2).
An executive order by President Kennedy issued in 1961, was the first instatement of
affirmative action policies. Meant to encourage government contractors to intentionally hire
minorities, the order was not typically followed as intended and the end result was the passage of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Moreno, 2003. In the Civil Rights Act, Title VI, desegregation is
mandated to all levels of education, including higher education.
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 4

In 1965, President Johnson addressed equal rights for education during the Civil Rights
movement addressing the need for policies and practices of affirmative action. President
Johnson references both the history and current opportunities for black Americans in order to
gain support for race-based decisions in higher education:
You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him,
bring him to the starting line of a race, saying you are free to compete with all the
others, and still justly believe you have been completely fair This is the next and more
profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity
not legal equity but ahuman ability not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality
as a fact and as a result. (Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004, p. 24)
Black Americans history of slavery had kept them from opportunities for so long, it would be
impossible for them to compete not only in the job market but academically without some
preferential consideration.
Not long after the Civil Rights Act is passed, there is a string of litigation focused on
affirmative action practices as it directly relates to higher education starting with the decision in
Adams v. Richardson in 1973. The ruling in this case required higher education admissions
offices to manage undergraduate and graduate acceptance rates of black students. They were
expected to admit the same percentage of white and black high school graduates. The higher
education institutions were also required to look at equal allocations in the areas of financial aid
awards and implement developmental programs to bring graduation rates for both white and
black students to a more equal level (Moreno, 2003).
The case University of California Regents v. Bakke in 1978 was the first time legislation
directly related to higher education reached the Supreme Court. Allen Bakke, a white applicant
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 5

to University of Californias Medical School, claimed he was denied admission to make room
for less qualified minority applicants. In their ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the
special admission program in this case operated as a racial quota and ultimately using race in
the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause (University of California Regents v.
Bakke, 1978), yet race could be still considered as one factor, among many, in the
administration of its admissions program (Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004, University of
California Regents v. Bakke, 1978). Federal suits like the Bakke case pushed states to take
action and in the 1990s, efforts to remove affirmative action became more evident specifically in
higher education. California passed Proposition 209 as an amendment to the states constitution
(Calif. Const. art. I, 31). This amendment banned both discrimination and affirmative action
programs that give preferences to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color,
ethnicity or national origin for educationpurposes (Kaufmann, 2007, p.3). Other states
quickly followed California either through legislation or as a result of litigation.
The most recent cases with rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court involving affirmative
action were the Michigan Cases: Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. In the case of
Grutter, it was found that the University of Michigan Law School admissions reviewed each
individual application and race was one of many factors considered. The court ruled in favor of
the University as there was evidence of an individualized admissions process. However, in the
Gratz case, it was found that the undergraduate admissions process for the University of
Michigan College of Literature, Science, and Arts included a points system awarding additional
points to students of minority race and ethnicity. The Court found that a points based system
was in fact an inappropriate way to use affirmative action and ruled in favor of the Gratz. While
both cases had different outcomes, they both still validated that race can be considered for
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 6

admission as a factor, among many just as it had in University of California Regents v. Bakke
(1978). These hallmark cases maintained the presence of affirmative action in higher education
admission practices (Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004).
The Impact on Higher Education
The ever growing task of managing universities as businesses rather than solely a place
for higher learning, administrators must make decisions based on the bottom line rather than
equality or fairness. Administrators must assuage tension between their own goal for autonomy
on campus while pleasing the Board of Trustees or their state government (Strutter, 2005).
Many students benefiting from affirmative action also benefit from need-based financial aid
(Chase, 2011, p.7). With institutional budget crunches, fewer non-paying students will be
recruited and admitted. Pressures affecting administrative leaders on campuses can cause
specific prospective students to suffer. Chase (2011) sums it up perfectly, the tension between
doing what is right for society in the largest sense and keeping the school solvent bedevils such
administrators. Nonetheless, as the tension is resolved, affirmative action is further
compromised (2011, p.7).
Admissions professionals are tasked with choosing a class with high academic standards
while ensuring the class will be a good fit for the university. Affirmative action practices can be
a beneficial way to create a diverse milieu enhancing the overall cultural learning experience.
However, litigation and appearance of reverse racism is a strong deterrent that has persuaded
some admissions offices to avoid quantitatively factoring race into their decisions (Garrison-
Wade & Lewis, 2004).
The overall goals of utilizing affirmative action in higher education admissions is to
create a diverse environment on college campuses and provide otherwise unattainable
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 7

educational opportunities to minorities. This goal, if achieved, could enhance the overall
learning experience for students of all racial backgrounds. The question is, has affirmative action
been effective in achieving these goals and is it still necessary today with our current college
population being as diverse as it is? (Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004).
Much of the litigation surrounding affirmative action has either fully prevented race-
based admission decisions (Universityor discouraged institutions from the practice of race-based
decisions. (University of California Regents v. Bakke, 1978, Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004). In
California, after Proposition 209 was passed, there was a significant decrease in minority
students in attending college in California. According to Kaufmann (2007), in 2004, under 20
years after Proposition 209 was passed, minority students accounted for 45% of high school
enrollees yet only 18% of beginning college freshmen. The overall minority population, while
growing at the high school level, had dropped 27% overall since the constitutional amendment
was implemented (Kaufmann, 2007). Proposition 209 not only affected admissions practices,
but it also eliminated outreach programs targeted at development of minorities in higher
education. UC Berkley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau reflects on the effects of Proposition 209,
he says the University of California became seen as unwelcoming to underrepresented
minorities and that UC Berkeley was missing out on exceptional [minority] students. (2005)
and Bob Laird (2005) explains that this perception encouraged underrepresented students with
strong academic records to enroll elsewhere (as cited in Kaufmann, 2007, p. 5).
Chancellor Birgeneau is very supportive of the intentional efforts to create a diverse
environment on his campus. He says:
Minority inclusion is a public good, not a private benefit. Indeed, the president of the
University of Mexico once said to me that the single most important skill that a 21st century
student must master is "intercultural competence" -- the ability, best learned via experience
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 8

with and appreciation of other cultures, to navigate successfully in today's globalized
society.(Birgeneau, 2005, Kaufmann, 2007).
The Chancellors assessment of Proposition 209 prompts an insightful question regarding
affirmative action is it necessary to have a multicultural experience in order to assimilate into
our society after graduation?
The literature written on affirmative action is equivocal regarding the practice of
affirmative action (Chase, 2011; Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004; Kaufmann, 2007; Lawson,
Smitherman, & Stokes 2003; Moreno, 2003; Sterrett, 2005). Much of the analysis focused on
affirmative action is supportive of an ethnically diverse learning environment to enhance ones
educational experience; however, they are unsupportive of quantitative race-based admissions
decisions. Most of the literature is supportive of preserving diverse populations on college
campuses to enhance the learning experience (Birgeneau, 2005; Garrison-Wade & Lewis, 2004;
Kaufmann, 2007; Moreno, 2003) and cites the removal of affirmative action practices reduces
minorities represented on campuses. In the Grutter v. Bollinger decision, there is support for the
idea that there are educational benefits directly from a diverse student population (Chase, 2011).
In the article Affirmative Inaction, Chase identifies that colleges are distancing themselves from
affirmative action related practices in admission. Chase discusses that the use of affirmative
action practices has sharply declined as institutions are reacting not only to actual litigation but
also to its threat (Chase, 2011, p.6).
Solutions or Solutions?
There is no question that diverse student bodies create an environment for cultural and
social learning. However, is it reverse-racism to admit a student based on ethnicity and race over
a higher qualified white student? Almost 50 years after the Civil Rights Act was put in effect
educators are still trying to sort out race-based issues as the U.S. Supreme Court is currently
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 9

hearing arguments in the Hopwood v. Texas case, another certiorari that addresses affirmative
action practice in university admissions. Today, there is still a debate whether the Civil Rights
Act is needed as a stepping stone for minority populations, specifically in admission to higher
education. Is race an appropriate reason to give students an advantage? Or is it time to require
all students to meet academic standards on their own merit regardless of race? Are students just
now being brought to the starting line like President Johnson stated (Garrison-Wade & Lewis,
2004)? Or are opportunities for students in elementary and secondary education adequate to be
and even playing field for all races?
Higher education institutions are diverse, pulling students not only from all races
domestically but also internationally. Affirmative action was put into place during a time there
was an aversion to diversity on college campuses and in society. Race is no longer a limiting
characteristic as all students are allowed the opportunity of free public education if desired. If a
public school does not prepare a student to meet academic standards, it should not be considered
a race-related issue. For higher education institutions to remain competitive and respected
academically, the academic quality of an applicant should come first in an admission decision.
Affirmative action should be eliminated from admissions procedures and replaced with an
evaluation of an applicants resume and academic abilities.
In the end, a students race does not impact a students ability to make choices to become
successful academically. With the opportunities available, it is not necessary for admissions
professionals to provide an advantage to students because of race. If an institutions grants
admission to students who do not academically earn it, regardless of race, those students will not
be guaranteed future success. Until the playing field is evened, some students will not be
expected to and will not work to meet standards set forth for all other students.
Affirmative Action in Higher Education 10


Affirmative Action in Higher Education 11

References

Chace, W. M. (2011). Affirmative Inaction: Opposition to affirmative action has drastically
reduced minority enrollment at public universities; private institutions have the power
and the responsibility to reverse the trend. American Scholar, 80(1), 20-31.
Constitution of California, Article I, 31
Garrison-Wade, D. F., & Lewis, C. W. (2004). Affirmative Action: History and Analysis.
Journal Of College Admission, (184), 23-26.
Kaufmann, S. W. (2007). The history and impact of state initiatives to eliminate affirmative
action. New Directions For Teaching & Learning, (111), 3-9. doi:10.1002/tl.280
Moreno, P. (2003). A History of Affirmative Action Law and Its Relation to College Admission.
Journal Of College Admission, (179), 14-21.
Sterrett, W. M. (2005). Current Issues Involving Affirmative Action and Higher Education.
Journal Of College Admission, 18722-28.
Stokes, C., Lawson, B. E., & Smitherman, G. (2003). The Language of Affirmative Action:
History, Public Policy and Liberalism. Black Scholar, 33(3/4), 14-17.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)