Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the use of race in admissions, some groups continue to undermine access for students of color. These forces have found a strong ally in the Trump administration , which has leveraged the might of the federal government to threaten affirmative action.
After failing to demonstrate that affirmative action hurts white students, they have changed tactics and began to promote the myth that helping some students of color access education results in discrimination against well-qualified Asian American students.
This harmful myth perpetuates inaccurate narratives of homogeneity in Asian American communities; disregards significant socio-economic differences between ethnicities; and ignores the stark intraracial disparities affirmative action helps to alleviate. This tactic is not new ; groups and individuals that seek to preserve unfair systems have long attempted to sow division in communities of color. Race-conscious admissions practices remain necessary in the fight for racial equity in higher education.
In this column, we explore five reasons to support affirmative action in college admissions. College enrollment and completion rates have risen significantly over the past four decades. However, students of color, especially black and Latinx students, are more underrepresented at selective universities today than they were 35 years ago. In fact, a black student enrollment disparity exists at 45 of the 50 flagship state universities, meaning that the percentage of undergraduates who are black is lower than the percentage of high school graduates in that state who are black.
For example, black students constituted 50 percent of — high school graduates in Mississippi , but were just Banning affirmative action only worsens this persistent problem. For example, one study found that students of color experience a 23 percentage point decline in likelihood of admission to highly selective public colleges after an affirmative action ban goes into effect. While much progress has been made in recent decades, students of color still remain underrepresented on college campuses nationwide.
Prioritizing diversity and employing race-conscious admissions policies are critical for promoting equity in higher education. Diversity on college campuses enhances the educational experiences of students of all backgrounds. These benefits may translate to better economic outcomes and, among other payoffs, prepare students to work in a diverse global economy , increasing the productivity, effectiveness, and creativity of teams.
Institutions of higher education have placed a greater priority on integration and campus diversity in recent decades. But how affirmative action goals are implemented has been challenged in courts and public opinion since the Civil Rights Act of was signed into law. Commission for Civil Rights , is a vocal opponent of affirmative action programs. You can't prefer one race without discriminating against another race," she said.
Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Boston University Center of Antiracist Research , told CBS News, "If we as a nation are serious about creating equity and justice, we have to institute programs that have been proven to create more equity in our schools, in our colleges, and our workplaces.
CBS News spoke with individuals about their thoughts and experiences with affirmative action. For some Black people, that creates a sort of imposter syndrome.
Hughes grew up in a racially diverse and affluent community in northern New Jersey and graduated from a private high school. In middle school, his parents sent him to an SAT prep course. He recalled the teacher said, "Based on your score and the fact you're Black, you're going to get into any college you want. Hughes found the comment problematic. 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 ! Glad to hear Prop 16 is losing in the polls. Sometimes voters are wiser than our CA politicians and other so-called leaders.
The issue Is all about which UC. UC does not publish a different admission standard for each UC campus. The eligibility standard to be allowed to apply is completed A through G courses. How to break ties between students who had schools that offer more AP courses or more concurrent enrollment courses? Do not ever express that diligent Asian kids make more sacrifices than diligent Latino kids. That is not accurate. Every kid we are discussing already made the admissions cut.
Affirmative action does not drop the standard to apply. A federal appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling the following year, finding that the university's policy is consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Students for Fair Admissions is expected to appeal the ruling, potentially setting up a showdown over affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Although the Trump Administration filed a brief in support of Students for Fair Admissions, the Biden Administration is likely to support Harvard as litigation in the case continues.
If the Harvard case does end up at the Supreme Court, it is quite possible that the Court's new conservative majority could eventually rule that affirmative action programs are unconstitutional. Even if a reconfigured Court did maintain current constitutional standards with respect to affirmative action, it will remain very difficult for institutions to craft programs that are sufficiently narrow in scope to pass constitutional muster.
In addition to litigation in the courts, affirmative action plans at institutions of higher education have been the subject of various executive branch actions. Under the Obama Administration, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued multiple guidance documents explaining proactive steps that colleges and universities could voluntarily take to increase diversity at their institutions.
The Trump Administration, however, rescinded those guidance documents and reinstated guidance that had previously been in effect during the Bush Administration.
0コメント