In the article, “The Truth about ‘holistic College Admissions”, Sara Harberson expresses how universities that are not allowed to use racial preferences on college admissions, are still devising strategies to work around the laws to produce the same result. Harberson states how the institutions are using what is called “holistic admissions”, which allows a college to factor in a student's background, race and income. By filtering out the minority groups, they are creating a less-diverse community, preventing students of certain backgrounds from a proper education, and taking away opportunities from students based on their ethnicity.
Colleges are using racial segregation in the admission process so that they can have a white-favoring campus
…show more content…
As Ratana explained, “It is unconstitutional for any institution to employ a racial quota under the Equal Protection Clause. Also, state laws do not supersede the law of the land. Affirmative action just factors in race as one of the many criteria that institutions use in the consideration of who to admit into colleges and employ”. One of the main purposes of the Affirmative action policy was to create a more diverse community. However, some universities have argued by saying that the ban of the policy is so that they can ensure a diverse community. By accepting certain percentages of each ethnicity, which would require the use of racial preference in the admissions process, the universities feel that it would be easier to maintain racial equality or as Harberson called it a “racial quota”. Harberson, who once worked as an admissions counselor for schools such as the University of Pennsylvania and at Franklin & Marshall College, stated how “Nowadays nobody on an admissions committee would dare use the term racial “quotas”, but racial stereotyping is alive and well. And although colleges would never admit students based on ‘quotas’, they fearlessly ‘sculpt’ the class with race and gender percentages in …show more content…
According to Justin Pope’s article, “Race-Neutral Admissions Can Work: Richard Kahlenberg’s Century Foundation Study”, Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and prominent advocate of class-based affirmative action, recently conducted a report showing the number of minority attendees in relation with the amount of white attendees and the dramatic difference that is still present in some universities. “Kahlenberg also acknowledges that highly selective universities like UCLA and the Universities of California-Berkeley and Michigan haven’t recovered from drop-offs in minority enrollments after voters in those states outlawed racial preferences.” Although voters have banned the use of the policy to “better” the issue, the issue is only becoming significantly worse, thus proving that the affirmative action policy was not to blame for the falling numbers of minority
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
The U.S. Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke was officially decided June 28, 1978. The case addressed the issue of use of affirmative action in university admissions processes. Affirmative action, also referred to as positive discrimination, was a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and was intended to ensure equal entry to educational institutions or employment entities to certain groups that “have historically suffered invidious discrimination” (Janda et al., 477). However, sometimes this method causes discrimination of other groups, through establishment of racial quotas. University of California employed the process of affirmative action and instituted racial quotas in its admissions
n the Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke in 1978, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of California, Davis Medical School because he was white, although he had great MCAT, GPA, and test scores he was denied twice, because the school was using “racial quotas” during admission and had “reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for minorities, including "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians"’’("Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. " West's Encyclopedia). Bakke sued the University of California for using “racial quotas” as well as claiming that the schools admission processes was a violation of “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth
There reason why Clegg is not in the sources below is because, in Liptak's article, Liptak says that Clegg said, “The court’s decision leaves plenty of room for future challenges to racial preference policies at other schools. The struggle goes on.” That is the reason why you don't see his name in the sources. In this case, I believe I write (qtd in Liptak) instead of (qtd in Clegg) since it came from Liptak's article.
Part III applies the Court’s precedent to the University’s affirmative action policy and concludes that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. Part IV examines the impact of Fisher II on existing affirmative action policies and concludes that the Court’s holding will be narrowly crafted and thus negligibly impact other policies. In addition, Part IV asserts that the Court’s affirmative action jurisprudence should be fundamentally altered because it fails to adequately guide lower courts, legislatures, and litigants concerning the permissible scope of affirmative action policies. As discussed in Part IV, a more effective—and honest—approach would be to acknowledge that: (1) diversity is an essential part of ensuring inclusion in higher education and the workplace; (2) remedying past discrimination is a compelling state interest; and (3) in limited circumstances race may be a dispositive factor in the admissions or hiring process. The Court’s current framework, although well-intentioned, ignores these realities and tries to quantify the role of race in admissions – a task that is impossible and
In the article “The Case for Historically Black Colleges and Universities: Understanding Race Relation in the United States Through its HBCUs” written by Priscelle Biehlmann, she uses data to argue that there are more advantages for both black and non-black students when attending a HBCU rather than a Predominately White Institution (PWI). First she discusses the how HBCUs emerged during the Reconstruction Period. Then she highlights the how court cases such as the 1898 Plessy v. Ferguson and 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court had an effect on HBCUs. She then transitions by providing distinct advantages Black and non-Black students undergo when attending a HBCU. Biehlmann starts the article discussing the emergence of HBCUs.
”This is what is supposed to be in effect overall public schools and colleges. But discrimination is inevitable, not because of all the racist people out there, but because of the lack of opportunities to be aware of discrimination between races. Although the United States has come a very long way in race equality, there is still vast room for improvement among all
Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are institutions of higher education in the United States founded primarily for the education of African Americans. Prior to the mid-1960s, HBCUs were virtually the only institutions open to African Americans due to the vast majority of predominantly white institutions prohibiting qualified African Americans from acceptance during the time of segregation. As such, they are institutional products of an era of discrimination and socially constructed racism against African Americans (Joseph, 2013). Successfully, millions of students have been educated in spite of limited resources, public contempt, accreditation violations, and legislative issues. The purpose of this research paper is to discuss
The civil rights area of the 1960s is over. Affirmative action policies based on racial quotas or preferences have been struck down by the Supreme Court, yet states have an interest in college admission that are diverse and reflect their general population. The University of Texas finds itself defending policies intended to conform to recent court rulings yet merely mentioning race as a factor in a holistic review has drawn a challenge. The University of Texas process of admissions aligns with Gutter V Bollinger. The facts of this case are in keeping with previous court precedents.
Public colleges and universities in the United States use a variety of factors to determine which students will be accepted. Universities often want a student body with diverse academic interests, talents, and backgrounds. They consider factors such as applicants’ grades, standardized test scores, community service, athletic or musical ability, and geographic location. Sometimes, universities also consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity. This case is about whether the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.
A large number of legal arguments in Alabama have stated that a high number of African-American students were placed in special education programs, created supposedly just for physically and mentally challenged students with special needs. Another unintended effect made by the Brown decision was on that of higher education. Plans were created to ensure that education among minorities was equal. But those plans have deteriorated the quality of admission standards that are so critical to education equality. The federal guidelines had sought out the increase of minority enrollment, but instead have resulted in the establishment of a quota system.
Race preferences in college admissions are mandated by the government. Certain race quotes must be met, or federal funding is reduced. The trend of government mandated quotas does not end there. We now are starting to see forced diversity quota hires/admissions with LGBT persons. In Canada compelled speech is forcibly enforced, so that one must call people by their preferred pronouns, even if they are biologically incorrect.
At least four Supreme Court justices believe that affirmative action is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts has said that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race”. This viewpoint offers no differentiation between “race consciousness” and “racism”, but is a quite common opinion. This sort of viewpoint is what may drive America towards class-based rather than race-based affirmative action. Because of the disparities in income and wealth, minorities are as likely as whites to benefit under a class-based policy.
According to the dominant theory the affirmative action was firstly introduced to deal with two types of social disruption in the 1960s as campus protests and urban riots in the North. However, this article is based on different theory as dominant theory's empirical evidence is limited. It examines the initial reason for advent of race-conscious affirmative action in 17 undergraduate institutions in the United States. And according to the research this article concludes that there were two waves that contributed to affirmative action: 1) first wave in the early 1960s introduced by northern college administrators 2) second wave in the late 1960s introduced as a response to the protests of campus-based students. This article will help me to establish the main reasons for introduction of race-conscious affirmative action in undergraduate
Throughout many of the affirmative action legal cases, one of the main arguments from proponents is that it is necessary in order to right the wrongs of past racial discrimination. Some say that affirmative action is justified because even though white applicants may be more qualified, this is only because they did not face the same hardships as their minority counterparts (Rachels, Ethics, 1973). Many argue if we do not integrate disadvantaged minorities into mainstream social institutions, they will continue to suffer the discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries and that this is detrimental to not only the minorities but also society as a whole (Anderson, 2002, 1270–71). However, the debate has recently shifted to the benefits of diversity in the classroom which the Supreme Court has affirmed as being a positive thing