AS THE summer approaches, all eyes are on the Supreme Court as it decides the fate of affirmative action for higher education. However, the Court must allow universities to maintain race-based admissions practices for three important reasons: Racial diversity improves students' education; America's racist past needs to be rectified; and finally, no one has presented an alternative that works.
Diversity
Diversity has become a buzzword for affirmative action advocates to indicate the benefits of race-based admissions. Admittedly, diversity means many things to many different people -- certainly, diversity is not just diversity of race. Indeed, almost all Americans can agree that a plethora of viewpoints, races, religions, localities, etc., belong at any university. The question then becomes, "Why should we single out race over all aspects of a person's identity?"
Many studies point out that professors and students alike agree that diverse students improve classrooms. This does not surprise anyone. What should be surprising, however, is how much an impact students of different races have on student bodies.
The best example comes from a study by the American Council on Education and the American Association of University Professors, both advocates of affirmative action. However, in a survey of law school students, eight out of ten students claimed having minorities present in their classes affected their opinions about the criminal-justice system. Only the diversity of race -- not of ideology, religion or anything else -- had such an immense impact on the education of students.
Making up for past discrimination
America's history will always be soiled by the heinous legacy of slavery and segregation. America's shameful history certainly bleeds into the present.
African-Americans have a lower average income and typically go to poorer schools. America's shameful history has forced many African Americans into a standard of living significantly lower than Mr. Joe Caucasian. Three decades of affirmative action have not been long enough to help make poverty race-neutral. This is not because affirmative action is failing -- it is because affirmative action needs more time to reach all African-Americans. Once a significantly large amount of African-Americans reach the middle class, then affirmative action will be finished. America has not reached that point yet.
One of the greatest needs of affirmative action stems from the status of inner-city schools. Since property taxes fund most public schools, poor districts, which are often predominately black, typically have the poorest performing schools. If many African-Americans are trapped in poor schools, then we must give them a leg up in admissions. It is not "lowering the bar"; it is rather recognizing the great disparity between public schools across the nation.
Admittedly, the net is overly broad -- rich African-Americans overly benefit while poor whites get left behind. Affirmative action provides a period of inequality to ensure long term equality in the broadest sense. Higher education is the only lifeline to pull the disproportionate amount of minorities out of poverty. Only when minorities no longer receive the majority of welfare checks and only when inner city schools reach a standard close to suburbia, can America's universities abandon affirmative action.
Is there a better way?
Affirmative action is imperfect. However, there is no better alternative to correct the injustices present in American society. Race-neutral plans, or "percent" plans, supported by President Geroge W. Bush, allegedly improve minority enrollment while not discriminating against whites. The logic is simple: By accepting the top "x" percent of a graduating class at any high school to the state school, high achieving students at both poor and rich schools can reach higher education. However, empirical evidence suggests otherwise.
California is an example of what happens when "percent" plans go awry. Currently, the top four percent of any graduating classes are admitted into the University of California system. It does not, however, ensure placement in the more prestigious schools such as Berkeley or UCLA. According to a new study by the Harvard Civil Rights project, in 1995 at Berkeley University, blacks and Hispanics used to account for 6.7 and 16.9 percent of the freshman class, respectively. After affirmative action was eliminated in California, in 2002, blacks declined to 3.9 percent (a change of 2.8 percent) while Hispanic admissions dropped to 10.8 percent (a change of 6.1 percent). Minority enrollment will decline with the end of affirmative action, and so will the quality of education at many colleges.
Affirmative action must stay
Unfortunately, affirmative action is the only remedy America currently has to combat the vast differences in wealth and opportunity between whites and African-Americans. Affirmative action is rightfully a thorny issue -- Americans should constantly criticize and debate its benefits and costs. But for now, affirmative action must stay.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com).
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
