Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action has been at the crux of national and statewide debate since its inception during the civil rights movement with lawmakers arguing for and against it countlessly over the past decades (Chrisman). Affirmative action is the process of taking gender, (and more politicized) race, and ethnicity into admissions process (Newell 381). This can occur in a variety of industries, one of the most controversial being postsecondary education: colleges and universities across the nation have affirmative action policies intending to give ethnic minorities access to the same quality of education that historically privileged races have been given. Proponents of affirmative action argue that it is needed to address historic discrimination against
racial and ethnic minorities while engaging the notion that diversity needed for students to be successful (Newell 381). Critics, on the other hand, claim that these groups are no longer disadvantaged, making affirmative action an antiquated policy that promotes racism against non-minority groups; and that affirmative action qualifies students on the basis of race not merit thus lowering the efficacy of students admitted.
While controversial, affirmative action in post-secondary education is still needed. Affirmative action aids disenfranchised groups towards achieving a higher level of education which would have been unlikely before due to minority groups having higher rates of poverty compared to non-minority groups (Rubio 182). Affirmative action is a needed policy because, despite claims otherwise, 1) minority groups are still disenfranchised, 2) many non-minority students are not affected by affirmative action, and 3) affirmative action can actually increase the standard of students admitted.
Firstly, minority groups who were historically disenfranchised are still disenfranchised, but not in the same way in which they were previously.
Leading up to and for a decades past the civil rights movement, minorities were victim to “institutional discrimination and social isolation”; this is irrefutable fact (Fryer 13). This discrimination occurred through segregation and established “separate, but equal” laws in the twentieth century that created an environment that decreased the upward economic and social mobility of minorities, these laws prevailed in southern states in particular. During the Civil Rights movement, many of these policies were overturned through lawsuits such as Sweatt v. Painter (1950) where a black man sued the president of The University of Texas at Austin Law School because he was denied admission because of segregation laws. To make up for the past discretions of discrimination against different races and ethnic minorities admissions programs developed affirmative action policy which gave millions of otherwise discriminated against students the opportunity to advance themselves (Newell
381).
Critics of affirmative action state that while it was needed in the past it is not needed today as minority enrollment has risen. This rise in enrollment is still not reflective of full diversity of the U.S., according to the 2015 US Census Bureau: 12.5% of Texas citizens are African American or Black and 38.8% of Texas citizens are Hispanic or Latino. Comparing those statistics to Texas’ largest university’s, The University of Texas at Austin (which is 90% composed of Texas residents), admission statistic: 5% of UT students are African American or Black and 22% of UT students are Hispanic or Latino (TEXAS Admissions). With a population of 27 million, the differences in representation of minorities among the previously segregated university and the State of Texas are staggering. If everyone has an equal opportunity, the representation of different groups in higher education should be similar to their residency in the area. This misrepresentation is likely occurring because in America children are likely to follow in the path of their parents, with lower rates of higher education diplomas among minorities this leads to students with parents who did not go to college believing they can not either (Wolfgang). Affirmative action allows these “first generation” college students a chance to attend a higher education institute where they might not have had a chance prior; this will continue until the percentage of minority parents with higher education degrees increases. Therefore until the representation of minority groups in higher education institutions, like UT, is similar (within 10% difference) to their population, affirmative action is still needed.
Secondly, affirmative action does not actually take away opportunities from non minority students to give to minority students.
Despite critic claims, non minority students as a whole are not all disadvantaged by affirmative action. The Supreme Court of the United States of America recently upheld affirmative action in a situation related to this claim. In Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) a white woman sued UT stating that she was rejected from the university to give way for a minority student. Compared to the Texas freshman profile, Fisher’s application scores were below the UT average for admission, but she claimed that had she been a minority she would have been accepted (Cassidy). This perception of racial preference is not true as only a small percentage 27% of UT students are from historically disadvantaged minorities, this perception comes from the an overestimation of slots for new students when colleges only accept a fraction of their applicant pool (Cassidy, TEXAS Admissions). Even for those students who are at the cutoff for admissions, such as Fisher, the benefits of a college education towards historically advantaged groups is significantly less than that towards disadvantaged groups such as minorities (Fryer 19). The perception that affirmative action causes reverse racism also comes from the idea that all minority admissions are a result of affirmative action, even if that was the case according to the rule of thumb that only 20% of applicants are admitted
to college, and of those only 15% are usually historically disadvantaged minorities, that concludes that only 3% of applicants would be admitted a result of affirmative action (Fryer 18). Therefore, affirmative action does not significantly affect a typical non minority student’s chance of admission to college.
Thirdly, affirmative action can improve the standard of students admitted to college. It achieves this by exposing students to a more diversified environment and creating competition through color-blind affirmative action policy. Color-blind affirmative action policies involve using non direct actions to increase the minority population in higher education institutions. This policy creates a diversified environment by placing more emphasis on extracurriculars in the college admission process because on average historically disadvantaged students score lower than non historically disadvantaged students on SAT/ACT scores and GPA assessment; this is likely caused by these students more frequently living in low-income areas which on average have lower education performance (Fryer 7, Cassidy). Extracurricular activities can increase the merit of students admitted because they are also seen to forecast future employment skill because of the ability to show leadership, teamwork, and management skills through them (Fryer 7-8). Color-blind affirmative action also creates competition through policies such as the “Top Ten Percent” rule. This rule, which The University of Texas at Austin and all Texas schools follows, states that all public schools in the State of Texas must admit the top 10% of every graduating high school class. Thus allowing for accomplished students from all different types of neighborhoods, low and high income, to gain a higher education degree (Cassidy). This creates competition because students have to compare their high school academic performance to their peers, who have received the same standard of education, and outperform them. Therefore, affirmative action raises the standard of college students by creating diverse students who have experience outside of academics and creating competition among students to promote academic performance.
In conclusion, affirmative action is a positive influence on our higher education system that will continue to reach its goal of creating diverse representation of the American and Texas population in higher education. It is positive because: minority students are still underrepresented in higher education institutions, non minority students are actually not disadvantaged by affirmative action programs, and it increases the standard of students admitted by creating competition for academic performance and increasing participation in non academic areas.