Students sometimes ask about affirmative action and when they do, they usually already have an opinion in mind. Their question is less about affirmative action per se and more about my opinion on affirmative action.
In response, let me begin more generally. The times we are in encourage us (to our detriment) to take a simple opinion on everything. We have 180 characters on twitter to voice an opinion. We are bombarded with quick posts and memes about everything across so many different social media. The reality for most of the issues worth discussing is that they are not so simple. That is why I encourage students to be critical thinkers. Ask questions - both of what you "know" but also about what you don't know.
In the case of affirmative action, there are so many critical questions beyond "what do you think of affirmative action?" Consider:
- What do you mean by affirmative action?
- Do you mean what do I think of the goals of affirmative action?
- Is it working the way intended?
But also, critical thinking requires other questioning:
- What metrics are we using to determine whether it is working?
- When did it start and for what purpose?
- How has society changed (or not) since the creation of affirmative action?
These are not simple questions. But they are necessary.
Affirmative action was first used as a policy term under the Kennedy administration in 1961. This was still before both the the civil rights act of 1964 and the Immigration and Naturalization act of 1965. The US was 89% White and 10% Black. Although Americans who were Black were free of slavery for 100 years, they were far from equal. Jim Crow laws, segregation, redlining, unfair voting laws and numerous other racist policies and attitudes prevented any progress. Only 3% of Americans who were black attained a college degree.
This was the era that affirmative action came into existence.
During the same era, the US passed the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965. This law opened immigration to the US in a diverse way that the US had never known before. It would take a few decades, but this law would ultimately mean immigration to the US was much more diverse (especially Asian) and much more educated. Here is a look at the changing diversity of race in the US:
The US remained less than 1% Asian until 1980 when it started to climb each decade until in 2020 6% of the US identified as Asian.
The 1965 law which helped facilitate Asian immigration also prioritized educated specialty occupations such as engineers, doctors, computer programmers, nurses and other educated persons. This meant that the large numbers of immigrants to the US were not only much more Asian but also much more educated. See the percentage of bachelor degrees by race and gender from the Census below:
For example, research by Min Zhou and Jennifer Lee show that for some groups likes Chinese immigrants, shows that 50% of the immigrants to the US had a college degree. In other words, US immigration laws were benefitting and attracting Asians with college degrees. This form of immigrant affirmative action shows up in the chart above. Every year since the immigration law passed, Americans identifying as Asian not only have higher college degree attainment than Americans who are Black, they had higher degree attainment than Americans who identified as white. This was a direct result of policy that hyper-selected people who had college degrees already.
At the same time that policy was bringing educated people from around the globe to the US, other policies were continuing to oppress Americans who were black. As the civil rights laws went into effect and segregation and Jim Crow laws fell out practice, new laws and policies were passed to continue the oppression. Many municipalities continued to underfund black neighborhoods. Schools, public housing, infrastructure all went underfunded. This resulted in urban housing projects (like the one in Gang Leader for a Day) that were highly segregated and extremely low income. And instead cities spent money on policing and prisons creating a new era of oppression, that would last decades: the era of mass incarceration. As the ACLU explains,
Despite making up close to 5% of the global population, the U.S. has more than 20% of the world’s prison population. Since 1970, our incarcerated population has increased by 500% – 2 million people in jail and prison today, far outpacing population growth and crime. One out of every three Black boys born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime, as can one of every six Latino boys—compared to one of every 17 white boys.
The prison expansion that commenced in 1973 reached its peak in 2009, achieving a seven-fold increase over the intervening years. Between 1985 and 1995 alone, the total prison population grew an average of eight percent annually. And between 1990 and 1995, all states, with the exception of Maine, substantially increased their prison populations, from 13% in South Carolina to as high as 130% in Texas. The federal system grew 53% larger during this five-year period alone.
Another policy that has put up obstacles for Americans who are black is school funding. As Michael Harriot writes in The Root,
In 2012, the U. S. Department of Education reported that about 33 percent of all white students attend a low-poverty school, while only 6 percent attend high-poverty schools. In comparison, only 10 percent of black students attend a low-poverty school, while more than 40 percent of black students attend high-poverty schools.
This means that black students are more than six times more likely than white students to attend a high-poverty school, while white students are more than three times more likely than black students to attend a low-poverty school.
And he continues,
The logical response to this is for whites to explain the disparity away with statistics of black unemployment and the minority wage gap, but that might not be true. In 2015, a research scientist named David Mosenkis examined 500 school districts in Pennsylvania and found that—regardless of the level of income—the more black students, the less money a school received. While this may not be true for every single school, people who study education funding say that they can predict a school’s level of funding by the percentage of minority students it has. Even though this is a complex issue that reveals how redlining and segregation decreased the property tax base in areas where blacks live—therefore decreasing funding—it underscores a simple fact: White children get better educations, and that is a calculable advantage.
In 2021, there remained an enormous 40 percentage point difference between Asian American adults, among whom 66 percent have a college degree, and Native American adults, among whom only 25 percent have a college degree. Among Black adults, 34 percent have college degrees. Among Hispanic adults, it’s 28 percent and among white adults, it’s 50 percent.
So, this brings us back to the original question about affirmative action. It was put into place to help Americans who are black achieve higher rates of education after centuries of discrimination. It has helped, but the obstacles of racism like mass incarceration and the flood gates of college graduate immigrants have mitigated the progress. There is clearly still an achievement gap that is a result of social policies over the course of decades and even centuries.
Is it unfair that it might be more or less difficult to get into a college based on race? Sure, if you consider all races equal and ignore all of the tertiary effects of race.
It is also unfair that some people are born to families that faced generational trauma, mass incarceration, segregation, discrimination and low income. It also seems unfair that after generations of discrimination, these people must compete with children of professionals who came to this country with college degrees and parents who have high income.
For more on Race and Affirmative Action:
Julie Park is a professor who studies race and education. She is the author of two books. In Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data (Harvard Education Press, 2018), she tackles misconceptions about how race and diversity work in higher education. She is also the author of When Diversity Drops: Race, Religion, and Affirmative Action in Higher Education (Rutgers University Press, 2013), an examination of how universities are affected by bans on affirmative action.
From Dr. Park's blogpage, here is a table of contents for here 2018 book, Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data:
Chapter 1: Black Students and the Cafeteria—What’s the Big Fuss?
Chapter 2: Who’s Really Self-Segregating? Sororities, Fraternities, and Religious Groups
Chapter 3: Is Class-Based Affirmative Action the Answer?
Chapter 4: Why Affirmative Action Is Good for Asian Americans
Chapter 5: Why the SAT and SAT Prep Fall Short
Chapter 6: The Problem of the “Problem of Mismatch”
Chapter 7: How Then Should We Think? A Conclusion
Chapter 2: Who’s Really Self-Segregating? Sororities, Fraternities, and Religious Groups
Chapter 3: Is Class-Based Affirmative Action the Answer?
Chapter 4: Why Affirmative Action Is Good for Asian Americans
Chapter 5: Why the SAT and SAT Prep Fall Short
Chapter 6: The Problem of the “Problem of Mismatch”
Chapter 7: How Then Should We Think? A Conclusion
From Harvard U. Press:
In Race on Campus, Julie J. Park argues that there are surprisingly pervasive and stubborn myths about diversity on college and university campuses, and that these myths obscure the notable significance and admirable effects that diversity has had on campus life.
Based on her analysis of extensive research and data about contemporary students and campuses, Park counters these myths and explores their problematic origins. Among the major myths that she addresses are charges of pervasive self-segregation, arguments that affirmative action in college admissions has run its course and become counterproductive, related arguments that Asian Americans are poorly served by affirmative action policies, and suggestions that programs and policies meant to promote diversity have failed to address class-based disadvantages. In the course of responding to these myths, Park presents a far more positive and nuanced portrait of diversity and its place on American college campuses.
Here is a podcast episode from BHD (Black and Highly Dangerous):
In recent years, affirmative action has re-emerged as a hot topic in the world of higher education. However, debates about race and affirmative action in higher education are often clouded by myths and misconceptions. Today, we focus on the facts and have an open conversation about diversity on college campuses by interviewing Dr. Julie J. Park, an associate professor of education at the University of Maryland, College Park. We begin by discussing the importance of racial diversity in higher education (24:19) and her forthcoming book— Race on Campus: Debunking Myths with Data (26:45). We then have an in-depth conversation about affirmative action, including the role of race in admissions (31:55) and whether some groups are especially disadvantaged by race-conscious admissions (33:52). We also discuss meritocracy and the factors that might impact a students’ ability to meet more narrow definitions of merit (42:45), equity and fairness within the admissions process (49:30) and how to foster racial diversity, belonging, and inclusiveness on campus (53:10).
Dr. Park wrote about this at Inside Higher Ed
According to an expert report filed in the case on the side of Harvard by David Card of the University of California, Berkeley, the admit rate for the Classes of 2014-2019 was 5.15 percent for Asian Americans and 4.91 percent for white applicants who are not recruited athletes, legacies, on a special dean’s list or children of faculty/staff members. It is problematic that white people are more likely to fall into these special categories, but that’s a different issue than eliminating the ability to consider race as one of many, many factors, which is the goal of the lawsuit.
And here is a review from research gate
In chapter 1, Park situates this book within the existent literature on structural diversity, organizational culture, and cross-racial interactions while presenting a conceptual framework illustrating their relationship. Park begins chapter 2 by addressing how IVCF underwent change by moving toward an organizational culture emphasizing racial diversity and crossracial interaction. She identifies two external forces that were at play, which included the historical roots of IVCF through the national IVCF organization and the changing racial demographics at the campus. In addition, Park distinguishes three internal factors including the unique needs of students of color, a decision to take risks by the IVCF leadership, and the integration of racial reconciliation as a core value. Then, she describes how the organization incorporated these influences into their operation and how IVCF acted upon these forces to begin the process of reimagining its own culture around race. This is a pertinent example of Schein’s (2010) model of organizational culture and creating a total cultural shift. The specific issue of addressing underlying assumptions makes up the majority of the book, with chapters focusing on specific elements of this process: building congruence between race and faith in chapter 3, the possibilities and perils of interracial friendship in chapter 4, shifting strategies in chapter 5, losing diversity within the group in chapter 6, when an Asian American minority becomes the majority in chapter 7, and realigning values, structures, and practice over time in chapter 8.
Best Colleges provides a 2023 analysis of affirmative action.
No comments:
Post a Comment