Affirmative Action Investigated

It’s becoming increasingly popular to support anything and everything that claims to further racial equality and bring opportunity to minorities and disadvantaged groups. The intention here is admirable, but in practice, this attitude leads many to jump to celebrate any program or measure that has “diversity and inclusion” in its title.

This calls for concern because, like any other initiative or proposal in an academic or legislative setting, we should be analyzing what’s before us instead of blindly swearing our allegiance. There is just as much potential for a project of this nature to have faulty methods, inconsistent outcomes, or poor strategic planning as any other, but many people give it far less critical thought. Simply greenlighting affirmative action policies without proper evaluation of the likelihood of success, runs the risk of undermining what we attend to achieve in the first place.

Affirmative Action is something we think of almost solely in regard to college admissions, however, the story of how this came to be a somewhat complex history. It all began in 1941 with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s executive order which outlawed discrimination in the federal government and defense industries based on race, color, creed, and national origin. The name we’ve come to know, however, was used by President Kennedy 20 years later when he required federal contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Interestingly, the very term which urged employers to disregard race now refers to methods that actually take it into consideration.

In the late 70s, a few measures were introduced which allowed school admissions and employers to use discriminatory methods for the sake of offering more opportunities to women and minorities. In the 80s and 90s, most of these were repealed. Around 2000, Circuit Courts began hearing many cases on affirmative action, some ruling in favor and others against. As the U.S. moved further away from segregation and more towards racial and ethnic integration, the best methods by which to do so became contested.

Because most race or ethnicity-based college admissions practices weren’t allowed at the time, some states opted to enact their own affirmative action policies. In 2000 and 1997, the Talented 20% Plan in Florida and the Texas Ten Percent Plan in Texas was established. These guaranteed the top 20% and 10% of high school students, respectively, admission to certain in-state colleges. California also passed a similar plan, but the national government hasn't been consistent with these state-level policies. In 2002 the Supreme Court (SC) ruled to allow the University of Michigan to use race as a factor in admissions. In 2003 the SC’s most significant ruling further allowed Michigan to use affirmative action for admissions, as long as its goal was to increase diversity—to the benefit of the campus as a whole—rather than racial reparations.

Clearly, legislative history shows us that there is no national consensus on affirmative action, as judicial decisions have favored both sides of the argument over and over. But college-goers have opinions on the issue as well. In 2014, the student group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) at Harvard University sued the college on the grounds that its consideration of race in the admissions process was discriminatory against Asian-American students. Several Circuit Courts ruled in favor of Harvard, but after further appeals from the SFFA, the Supreme Court agreed to a hearing of the case, which took place on October 31. Because of the Court’s conservative majority, the NYT writes that it’s possible affirmative action will be deemed unconstitutional, although the three liberal justices brought a strong defense. Ultimately, the Harvard case is only one of many other instances of contention and disagreement between schools, students, and the general public about what is fair and what is considered discrimination.

“I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means. It seems to mean everything for everyone.” – Justice Clarence Thomas (conservative)

But what of the policy’s efficacy? Despite the assumption that affirmative action benefits minority students, a 2005 study found that graduation rates for those admitted through affirmative action were around 57%, while those in the control groups were between 73-80%. Author Heather Rose says in her abstract, “A student's family, school, and neighborhood characteristics can explain a small part of these differences, but academic preparation explains most of the difference.”

So what is the solution? Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) research regarding inequality and trauma in early childhood has become widely accepted in the last decade. The answer to fostering more successful outcomes in adulthood they’ve consistently landed on is earlier intervention. The sooner a child receives support from a caring adult, the lower their risk for a plethora of health issues—heart disease, drug abuse, and obesity, to name just a few things. The same very straightforwardly applies to the connection between educational programs and resources and later academic success.

As Rose’s study shows, the unfortunate reality is that programs that kick in after adolescence are often simply too late. Quality education is most effective when it is accessed from a young age, and many disenfranchised communities, including rural and historically underserved populations, lack the educational infrastructure and funding to bring quality schooling to their students. Helping with adult employment or even college enrollment may just not be enough to change the trajectory of a life. Early intervention appears to be the most consistently helpful principle we can implement.

A better way to approach this disparity would be to start earlier—perhaps with elementary schools in Black, Hispanic, and rural communities. Early access to educational resources like tutoring, pro-social peer groups, and smaller classroom sizes hugely predicts how well kids will continue to do later in their education. Instead of admitting students based on race who may or may not be prepared for a demanding university, if we offer proper resources in K-12, there might not be a need for those affirmative action measures at all.