Under the banner of Affirmative Action, many elite colleges and universities have programs to preferentially admit members of “protected groups,” such as African-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. Fewer of the coveted places in freshman classes are therefore available to others, such as non-Hispanics Caucasians and possibly Asian-Americans. Is it fair for these universities to consider race in the admissions process?
The case against such Affirmative Action is, as Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his “I Have a Dream” speech, that people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. University entrance, by this logic, should concentrate on academic merit. The Supreme Court found the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection of the Laws to disallow racial segregation in public schools because segregation deprived black children of equal educational opportunities. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination “on the basis of race, color, or national origin” by any institution receiving Federal financial aid. All of the universities in question receive such aid. How can they justify using race as a factor in the admissions process?
Here’s one response: In some contexts, race may be a relevant qualification. Excellence in acting should be a major consideration when casting a movie, but few of us would object if race was considered in the choice of the actor to portray Jacky Robinson or Malcolm X.
Similarly, to determine if race is relevant to college admissions, we have to consider the context. Generally speaking, universities exist to serve society. Harvard was started to train men for the ministry so that Christianity would be vital in the colonies. Teachers’ colleges were started to facilitate educating the public in literacy, numeracy, and American ideals. State universities provide education in agriculture, industry, finance, mining, architecture, engineering, science, social science, history, and the humanities so that our country will have the leaders and workers needed for prosperity, as well as the informed citizens needed to maintain democracy. Helping individuals fulfill their dreams is a bi-product, not the goal of university activities.
Academic merit isn’t the only admission consideration at many universities. Student athletes often receive preferential admissions because a winning football or basketball team attracts private donations, even to state universities. The children of generous donors receive preferential treatment for the same reason. In addition, state universities generally are mandated to serve the people of that state, and therefore give preference to the state’s residents. Preferring racial minorities is therefore not a departure from a practice of basing admission decisions strictly on academic merit. Other considerations often prevail.
But how could selection influenced by race advance the university’s social mission? One view is that attendance at prestigious universities often leads to distinguished careers. Successful minority members are roll models for the younger generation who will aspire to success when they see that people who look like them are already successful. As more people of color strive for and achieve success, according to this view, racism diminishes, making our country a “more perfect union.”
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor noted that graduates of prestigious universities dominate many of the most important decision-making institutions in government and business. Minority graduates in these positions will better understand and accommodate the needs of minorities in our society. The Military Academy at West Point has stressed the need for more black officers to lead black soldiers.
Finally, and most prominent in current Supreme Court decisions, universities provides a better education when the student body is more diverse because students learn a great deal from their interactions with other students whose background is different from their own.
Against such affirmative action is the claim that preferential admissions for blacks will increase racial tensions as many white students feel cheated when they are rejected in order to make room for black students with inferior academic credentials. In addition, the idea that blacks need a special preference in order to be admitted to prestigious colleges reinforces the racial stereotype of blacks being less able than whites to compete intellectually on a level playing field.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas adds that the history of slavery has so bedeviled our history that any use of race in decision-making should be avoided whenever possible. If diversity in the student body has educational advantages, preference can be given to students from diverse geographic areas and underrepresented socio-economic and linguistic groups. Some of these students would belong to different races, but they wouldn’t be chosen on account of race.
Proponents of affirmative action object that only programs that directly feature race can combat our society’s continuing systematic racism, which includes discrimination against blacks in employment, pay, housing, exposure to environmental hazards, and police protection. If, like Justice Thomas, we consider race too hot to handle, such racism will continue indefinitely.
Comments