Affirmative Action In Higher Education

Affirmative action in the United States higher education system has been one of the most controversial policies since its inception in the mid-20th century (Alhaddab, 2015; Palmer, Wood, & Spencer, 2013; Platt, 1997; Zamani & Brown, 2003). Intended to redress discrimination and inequality within institutions, particularly regarding college access, affirmative action has been under assault for its perceived inequity and unconstitutionality (Alhaddab, 2015; Allen, 2011). Opponents of affirmative action often argue the policy encourages implicit bias, or “reverse discrimination,” and that admission decisions should be purely merit-based. Proponents believe it necessary to promote diversity and ensure the successful integration of historically
underrepresented groups, the exposure of which benefits all students (Fryer & Loury, 2005). The contentious debate over affirmative action has led many colleges and universities to move away from race-based policies out of fear of litigation (Orfield, 2007; Palmer, 2010), with some states prohibiting affirmative action altogether (Glater, 2006; Jaschik, 2011; Schmidt, 2006). Thus, the future of affirmative action in American postsecondary institutions is at a crossroads. This paper will trace the history of affirmative action within American colleges and universities and examine some of the most notable court rulings, as well as address the consequences of eliminating race-based affirmative action and the impact of efforts to replace it.
Broadly defined as a race-conscious and results-oriented government policy, affirmative action in a higher education context seeks to remedy long-standing discrimination against historically underserved groups by providing equality of opportunity (Tierney, 1997; Zamani & Brown, 2003).
Initally, higher education was intended for “gentlemen scholars,” or wealthy, White males (Thelin, 2004), and thus, affirmative action policy acknowledges that systemic inequalities require ongoing initiatives to level the playing field for all Americans (Platt, 1997). Affirmative action programs are not meant to guarantee equal results; rather, the policy is meant to allow for equality of opportunity to those groups facing discrimination in the nation's work force and educational institutions (Alhaddab, 2015). Though the roots of affirmative action can be traced back to the 1930’s and 40’s through public assistance and entitlement programs (e.g., the G.I. Bill), the beneficiaries of these programs were typically limited to that of white, working-class and lower-middle class males (Platt, 1997). Therefore, it was not until the civil rights and feminist movements in the early 1950’s that affirmative action began to take shape in higher education for the advancement of African Americans and
women.
Several components were particularly important to this movement, including the 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown v.
Board of Education, which reversed the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson and the doctrine of "separate but equal"; President Kennedy's 1961 Executive Order 10925, which for the first time linked the phrase "affirmative action" to civil rights enforcement policy; and the 1964 Civil Rights Act signed by President Lyndon Johnson, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion, or national origin (Palmer, Wood, & Spencer, 2013; Tierney, 1997). Additionally, in response to President Johnson’s War on Poverty, part of the national solution was to create equal access to education, housing, and other resources (Alger et al., 2000). However, affirmative action was not greatly enforced until 1965, when President Johnson explained that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was not enough to ensure justice and overcome discrimination: “You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair...This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity––not legal equity but human ability––not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result” (President Johnson, 1965). The President reinforced his speech by
mandating government contractors to use affirmative action in all aspects of hiring and employing minorities (Brunner, 2002). As a result of this mandate, many colleges and professional schools started to recruit minority students as a part of their educational mission. Moreover, due to Title IX of the 1972 educational amendments to the Civil Rights Act, equal opportunity as a right for women was legally backed by the power of the federal government. Ultimately, these mandates led to institutions implementing admission policies that took race and gender into consideration (…). Eventually, affirmative action would expand its representation to include other marginalized racial and ethnic groups (i.e., Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans), as well as those discriminated against based on sexual orientation and disability status (Platt, 1997; Zamani & Brown, 2003), but the initial changes in higher education admission policies were most evident in the increased enrollment of African Americans and women (Kaufmann, 2007).
Developing admissions practices that incorporated tenets of affirmative action policy took several forms: targeted outreach and recruitment of underrepresented students, "bridge" and remedial programs, and other support services that provided psychological, cultural, and technical encouragement. Many of these programs also recognized that a student’s capacity to do well in a university could not only be judged by past educational performance in standardized tests and grades, especially when the majority of schools serving these populations lacked the resources to enhance student success (Kozol, 1967; 1991). Thus, the enrollment of historically underrepresented groups saw a major increase in postsecondary institutions due to changes in admission policies. For example, between 1970 and 1990, the number of African American college graduates more than doubled; between 1964 and 1994, the number of female Ph.D. 's increased more than tenfold; and with the ensuing diversification of the faculty, pedagogy was opened up to new techniques and ideas that fostered diversity (Platt, 2007; Carter and Wilson, 1994; Levine,1996). Furthermore, government funding of public education, health and nutrition programs, and community development programs for inner cities made it possible for previously excluded populations to graduate high school, thereby increasing the chances of attending a higher education institution. During this period (1965-78), jobs and possibilities opened up in unions, the public sector, and other areas that had once been off-limits to all but White men (Patterson, 1995). Moreover, in cases involving nonintentional but institutionalized patterns of discrimination, the Supreme Court ordered tough remedies, and the federal government did more than ever to ensure active, vigilant enforcement by regulatory agencies of civil rights laws (Taylor and Liss, 1992; Oppenheimer, 1996). For instance, universities were forced to comply with affirmative action if they wished to continue receiving direct and indirect economic support from the state and federal governments. This compliance was enforced by very concrete measures, such as quotas, set-asides, goals, and timelines. Quotas made it possible to track changes and effectiveness by requiring institutions to "go on the record" and publish their intentions, as well as respond to the demands of various constituencies. As Platt asserts, changing the institutional fabric of colleges and universities would not have been possible without this kind of enforcement (1997). In addition to diversifying faculty and administrators, shifts in campus policies, programs, curricula, and relations reflect real institutional change Palmer et al., 2013). Despite research indicating the benefits of affirmative action, the constitutionality of this policy has been challenged vigorously in postsecondary education.