College admissions will never ask for eye or hair colors, so why is race a required question? In the college admissions process, multiple factors are taken into consideration to judge a student’s character, intelligence, and abilities. These factors include GPA, extracurriculars, recommendations, etc. One notable factor is also race, and it was a result of the affirmative action policies that first took effect in the early 60’s. Affirmative action refers to policies and orders that were passed to increase opportunities in the workforce and higher education for minority groups who have been historically underrepresented (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). When it comes to the topic of affirmative action, most of us would agree that taking …show more content…
Race should not be a factor in college admissions because it leads to reverse discrimination, sets double standards, and overlooks class-based issues.
One particular reason why race should not be a factor in college admissions is that it will lead to reverse discrimination. To clarify, in President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, it states, “it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin…The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin,” (Kennedy). This piece of evidence is important to acknowledge because it defines the original goal of affirmative action. Executive Order 10925 was created to eliminate discrimination based on a person’s identity and to ensure that everyone was treated fairly without prejudice and regard to their race. Following this order, it would be unlawful if colleges used a student’s race to decide whether they should be admitted or denied, which is what results in reverse
…show more content…
Many supporters of race-conscious admissions argue that without considering race as a factor, many groups of underrepresented minorities won’t have the chance to continue onto higher education because of their lack of resources, as compared to the wealthy and privileged white applicants. However, this is based on stereotypes. In “The Atlantic” article, “The Affirmative Action That Colleges Really Need”, the author states, “The current framework of race-based preferences…disproportionately helps upper-middle-class students of color, and pits working-class people of different races against one another…Research by the economist Raj Chetty shows that…Seventy-one percent of Black, Latino, and Native American students at Harvard come from college-educated homes with incomes above the national median; such students are in roughly the most advantaged fifth of families of their own race,” (Kahlenberg). What this shows is that in reality, there are families that come from underrepresented backgrounds who are still just as privileged because of their social class. Stereotypes create flaws in the system by giving minority students the boost they do not need instead of giving it to the lower class students that actually do, which includes minorities and the majorities alike. Since race has no correlation to how well someone is able to perform academically, it shouldn’t be
In “Net (Race) Neutral: An Essay on How GPA + (reweighted) SAT - Race = Diversity,” Christine Goodman illustrates the opposing viewpoints in regards to the racial discriminatory efforts by the college institutions to help diversify the incoming freshman class. With this, Goodman provides statistics and opinions of experts on the matter, which includes comparison of such discriminatory acts against other institutions. To begin, she brings up an enlightening, yet controversial court case decision: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013). This court case demonstrates significance to this topic because it counteracts a previous court case, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which, “upheld diversity as a compelling interest that would justify narrowly
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.
Issue- Can race diversity be taken into account when deciding admissions to a public University? Previous History- Grutter believed that the University was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the Civil Rights Act.
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
Race should not be a factor for college applications, financial aid or scholarships. However, income should be a factor when it comes to financial matters such as aid or scholarships. Income can affect a person’s life by increasing stress. People with lower incomes are worried about food shelter, and other basic needs. Higher education is the best way for people to increase their income but without financial assistance, it is almost impossible to pursue a degree.
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.
Sure it creates diversity, but a student who is more deserving to go to a prestigious school shouldn’t be denied a spot because he isn’t a minority. Bakke won the case and a spot in the university, and the Supreme Court invalidated the school’s special admissions program. Now all students are equally likely to be accepted into a state
This particular quota system would disable student compatibility, increase grade inflation, and destroy the integrity of higher education itself. The best alternative would be to have a colorblind system created by based solely on enterprise and merit. Affirmative action programs state the of poverty as a main factor individual's educational progress. Thus occurring, students coming from financially stable backgrounds are more likely to have a thought in admission acceptance. Brown v. Board of Education engraved its way for significant opportunities in our society for both non-colored people and minorities by pursuing
Furthermore, the University of North Carolina's admissions policies do not discriminate against Asian American applicants. The university's holistic admissions process considers a wide range of factors, including race, and does not rely on quotas or predetermined targets. The university points to evidence showing that Asian American applicants continue to be admitted at high rates and that their enrollment numbers have increased in recent years. The petitioner’s claims under federal civil rights statutes are without merit. The University of North Carolina's use of race in admissions decisions does not discriminate against any particular racial or ethnic group, and its policies are consistent with Supreme Court precedent that allows for the limited use of race in college admissions to achieve diversity.
After the Brown decision, many institutions of higher education began to desegregate, although the process was slow and uneven. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation further strengthened the legal basis for desegregation in higher education. While affirmative action has been a controversial topic, with some arguing that it is reverse discrimination, others argue that it is necessary to address historical inequalities and create a more diverse and inclusive society (History.com,
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.
As of right now “half or more of the black students entering elite universities are the sons and daughters of African immigrants”, a fact that slightly disadvantages the Mainstream middle class black Americans but majorly disadvantages the Abandoned (Robinson 7). These students may not have many opportunities to achieve many academic feats because of their familial situations, they could have to work or take care of their families rather than focusing on their education. Comparing African immigrants to them is not fair and “We could pretend not to notice how distinctive African immigrants are from native-born black Americans, or we could try to understand those differences and put them in context” which is what universities need to understand (Robinson 20). Rather than universities failing to admit the students who are systematically disadvantaged by the effects of slavery, they choose to admit those who are advantaged by their background, who are more likely to have had the opportunity to pursue their academics more easily. The two groups should not be in the same category if affirmative action is to continue the way
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.
As far as morality and justice are concerned, if a school or business or government declines to practice affirmative action, that’s okay” – says the
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