Home About Us Media Kit Subscriptions Links Forum
APPEARED IN


View All Articles

Download PDF

DIRECTORIES:

Job Opportunities

Tutors

Workshops

Events

Sections:

Books

Camps & Sports

Careers

Children’s Corner

Collected Features

Colleges

Cover Stories

Distance Learning

Editorials

Medical Update

Metro Beat

Movies & Theater

Museums

Music, Art & Dance

Special Education

Spotlight On Schools

Teachers of the Month

Technology

Archives:

1995-2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

APRIL 2003

Affirming Affirmative Action
by Stuart Dunn

Last year the Federal Appeals Court found the University of Michigan’s use of race as one factor in student admissions to be constitutional. This case is now under review by the Supreme Court, reopening the twenty-five year old Bakke decision on the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

In an ideal society all students would compete equally, and admissions would be based on past performance and future potential. (Just how this would be measured is debatable.) While our society is among the best on earth, it is far from ideal. This is particularly true with regard to educational quality and equality. One glaring shortfall is the difference in the education provided to mostly White, suburban children, and to mostly Black and Hispanic, inner city children. One of the effects of this disparity is that many minority applicants have difficulty competing for college admission on the basis of grades and test scores alone.

In order to compensate for this, many colleges have adopted a policy of affirmative action. But, what should affirmative action include? Should it just involve outreach and counseling? It clearly should include the elimination of racial, and other, bias from tests. Does it mean scholarships should be provided for those in need? Should colleges provide remedial programs? Should different standards be applied to minorities than to White and Asian applicants? Does it include setting aside a fixed number of places for minority students (quotas)? As we go down this list we move from broad public support to increasing disapproval.

Discrimination in entrance requirements has a long history in America’s colleges. If you are the child of alumni, especially one who contributes heavily or has political influence, you may expect relaxed entrance standards. (George W. Bush is a noteworthy example.) If you are an outstanding athlete, your grades and test scores need not be very good. If you come from a foreign country, small town or a rural area your chances of acceptance will be better than that of city kids with equivalent credentials. (After all, it is argued, we need student diversity.) While the public has accepted these special considerations, when it comes to race, many are prepared to draw the line.

Until we fix our inner city primary and secondary schools, we need affirmative action to provide minority kids a fairer opportunity for a college education. Ironically, equality in this case means special consideration. Anything else would be hypocrisy. Admittedly, race is an imperfect measure of reduced educational opportunity and quality. Some minority children go to excellent schools, but these are the exceptions. Unfortunately, for the most part, race and poor school quality are closely correlated. Race, therefore, serves as a practical substitute for evaluating each applicant’s school history. As Berkeley and UCLA show, the elimination of race as an entrance consideration means reduced minority acceptances. In the University of Michigan case the use of race, as one factor in admissions seems fair and workable. Let’s hope the Supreme Court agrees.#

 

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE

Name:

Email:
Show email
City:
State:

 


 

 

 

Education Update, Inc.
All material is copyrighted and may not be printed without express consent of the publisher. © 2004.