In this column, we explore five reasons to support affirmative action in college admissions. College enrollment and completion rates have risen significantly over the past four decades. However, students of color, especially black and Latinx students, are more underrepresented at selective universities today than they were 35 years ago. In fact, a black student enrollment disparity exists at 45 of the 50 flagship state universities, meaning that the percentage of undergraduates who are black is lower than the percentage of high school graduates in that state who are black.
For example, black students constituted 50 percent of — high school graduates in Mississippi , but were just Banning affirmative action only worsens this persistent problem. For example, one study found that students of color experience a 23 percentage point decline in likelihood of admission to highly selective public colleges after an affirmative action ban goes into effect. While much progress has been made in recent decades, students of color still remain underrepresented on college campuses nationwide.
Prioritizing diversity and employing race-conscious admissions policies are critical for promoting equity in higher education. Diversity on college campuses enhances the educational experiences of students of all backgrounds. These benefits may translate to better economic outcomes and, among other payoffs, prepare students to work in a diverse global economy , increasing the productivity, effectiveness, and creativity of teams.
Institutions of higher education have placed a greater priority on integration and campus diversity in recent decades. White women may have been among the greatest beneficiaries of this effort. Between and , female college enrollment more than doubled —from 19 percent of all students to 44 percent. During this period, the percentage of white women age 25 to 35 with college degrees surged from less than 15 percent to more than 40 percent.
People of color have also benefited significantly from college integration and efforts to prioritize campus diversity. Overall, an abundance of evidence demonstrates that systematic efforts to prioritize diversity in college admissions can improve the representation of historically excluded groups while bolstering the educational experiences and economic outcomes of all students. While income can and should be considered as part of a holistic evaluation of applicants, it should complement rather than supplant the consideration of race and ethnicity.
Wealth makes it easier for families to relocate to better school districts, purchase test preparation books and classes, and pay or help pay college tuition. But centuries of systemic racism and intergenerational transfers have provided white households with far more wealth than households of color, even after controlling for income.
In fact, middle-income white households typically have twice as much wealth as their Latinx counterparts and three times more wealth than their black counterparts. As a result, students of color especially black students are more likely than similarly situated white students to attend underfunded and high-poverty K schools.
Even when students of color have wealthy parents or attend the same schools as white students, they experience the U. Schools are also more likely to suspend or expel students of color than white students. Toward this goal, some firms and institutions aggressively recruit minorities and women, others set numerical targets and timetables to raise the level of minority and female representation, and still others establish quotas to hire or admit a specified number of minority and female candidates.
These programs have brought or accompanied significant gains for women and minorities. In the past 25 years, black participation in the work force has increased 50 percent and the percentage of blacks holding managerial positions has jumped fivefold. In , women comprised only 5 percent of lawyers compared to 20 percent today. Twenty-five years ago, the student population at University of California, Berkeley, was 80 percent white compared to 45 percent today.
Despite these strides, severe inequities remain. Nearly 97 percent of corporate senior executives in the United States are white. Only 5 percent of all professionals are black though blacks comprise Hispanics hold only 4 percent of white-collar jobs but make up 7.
As civil rights groups press for more aggressive and comprehensive preferential treatment programs to eliminate such inequities, opposition to these programs mounts. According to one poll, a majority of whites and one-third of blacks oppose preferential treatment for minorities.
Opponents have long charged that the programs discriminate against white males. Recent critics, including several noted black scholars, argue that preferential treatment programs victimize and stigmatize minorities, increasing friction among groups.
But defenders of the programs hail them as the most expedient and fairest way to overcome racial and sexist barriers in our society. Are preferential treatment programs morally justified? Arguments Against Preferential Treatment Opponents of preferential treatment programs argue that when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different.
In deciding who should be hired for a job or admitted to a college or university, the relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex. To award or deny benefits on the basis of race or sex is as unjust as traditional discriminatory practices.
Moreover, preferential treatment programs unjustly ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them. Those who oppose preferential treatment programs also claim that if the purpose of the programs is to compensate for past discrimination or present disadvantages, then only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference.
Current preferential treatment programs, however, favor members of selected groups regardless of whether an individual member has ever suffered discrimination. In fact, most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot. Critics of preferential policies further argue that society's burdens ought to be distributed fairly among its members.
Preferential treatment programs are unfair because they impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices or for rectifying present inequalities than any other individuals. It is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation. Programs awarding preference according to race or sex are also opposed on the grounds that they cause much more harm than good.
First, with these programs in force, those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen.
The inevitable result is reduced productivity and efficiency in the work place and the lowering of academic standards in colleges and universities. Second, preferential treatment programs harm minorities and women by stigmatizing them and devaluing their achievements. Florida Atlantic University. Direct correspondence to Thomas C.
E-mail: Wilson fau. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Cite Thomas C. Select Format Select format. Permissions Icon Permissions. Abstract This study addresses whether whites' rejection of affirmative action reflects an opposition to group-based preferences per se, independent of their attitudes toward blacks. Issue Section:. You do not currently have access to this article. Download all slides. Sign in Don't already have an Oxford Academic account?
You could not be signed in. Sign In Forgot password?
0コメント