Much of the affirmative action debate revolves around questions of fairness: Are white students treated unfairly in application procedures that consider race as a factor? The question is usually approached from the white perspective, as white prospective students to selective schools argue that they are the victims of reverse discrimination.
But the flip side of the fairness issue has been lost: Will African-Americans be treated fairly and have opportunities equal to those of whites if affirmative action policies are eliminated? The answer, sadly, is no.
Most opponents of affirmative action say the use of race-based affirmative action is no longer necessary or justified because colleges can achieve racial diversity through "race-neutral" admissions policies, such as the Texas plan to admit the top 10 percent of each Texas high school's class to the state's public universities ("High court urged to end race-based admissions," The Los Angeles Times, Jan. 17).
The assumption underlying affirmative action opponents' claim is that American society and race relations are at the point where "race-neutral" policies will genuinely be neutral, and that the elimination of race as a factor in admissions decisions will not result in blacks and whites having unequal opportunities. Unfortunately, people who think race-neutral programs will give African-Americans a fair chance may be a bit too optimistic about the state of racial colorblindness in the United States.
It's true, outward signs of racism have declined dramatically in recent years. Opinion polling data tells us that whites hold much more positive attitudes towards blacks than ever before and support egalitarian ideals. But with an issue as touchy as race, about which people usually say what they think others want to hear, what people say can't be the only thing that's examined. What they think has to be explored as well. Social scientists have done just that, and the results do much to blow affirmative action opponents' notions -- specifically, the idea that fairness will reign if affirmative action programs are eliminated -- to smithereens.
Recent social psychology research studies illustrate what many African-Americans have long lived with but many whites, for whatever reason, don't want to acknowledge: Racism still exists. Sure, blatant, overt racism is no longer prevalent, but that doesn't mean racism has disappeared -- rather, it has taken on a different form, a subtler one. Modern racism often takes the form of "aversive racism." Aversive racists consciously and sincerely support egalitarian principles and believe themselves to be unprejudiced, but they also unconsciously harbor negative feelings and beliefs about blacks and discriminate unintentionally in subtle and rationalizable ways.
One study conducted by psychologist John F. Dovidio is particularly illustrative of this subtle, but very real, bias, and how it can affect admissions processes. White research participants who were asked to rate people's applications in an admissions scenario rated a highly qualified African-American candidate very positively, but considered the highly qualified white applicant -- with exactly the same credentials -- to be even better. In admissions and hiring decisions and in every other aspect of their lives, African-Americans face modern, subtle forms of racism -- racism that can exist despite a white person's good intentions. Thus affirmative action programs remain a necessity.
Passive "equal opportunity" measures won't cut it, and "race-neutral" policies like Texas' 10 percent program -- the alternative affirmative action opponents are touting -- won't cut it either. Plans like that of Texas' higher education system have, as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has pointed out, two flaws: They cannot be easily applied to graduate school admissions, and their success in recruiting minority students depend on schools remaining racially and ethnically segregated ("Bush and affirmative action," The New York Times, Jan. 17).
Certainly, affirmative action is a flawed fix. It is not a perfect policy. But "race-neutral" alternatives won't be adequate in ensuring equitable treatment for blacks. American society is still at the point where the 20 points the University of Michigan gives African-American applicants is not really "preferential treatment" -- it's not preferential because that would assume the playing field is level in the first place, and it's not. The consideration of race in admissions is still necessary to give black applicants a fair shot, equal to whites'. In a time when disadvantage and modern forms of subtle racism and bias are still real, axing affirmative action is not a viable option.
(Laura Sahramaa's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at lsahramaa@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
CASTAGNO: One year later — a local zoning ordinance proves its worth
By Conall Costagno | 20 hours agoIn its current situation, Charlottesville is an early adopter of the upzoning movement, giving the City the unique opportunity to act as a shining example of its benefits.
RASHID: Club exclusivity hurts the student body
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 3 days agoWe need to reconsider how we think about extracurriculars — this hyper-competitive and exclusive culture which implicitly frames clubs as resume-padders must be stopped.
EDITORIAL: Reckon consistently with our history
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUntil these bureaucracies have proven willing to commit to change outright, it is up to us, students and Charlottesville residents, to continue pushing for that change.
