Framing the Argument over Affirmative Action in College Admissions - Essay Example

Framing the Argument over Affirmative Action in College Admissions Abstract This paper attempts to examine and evaluate the arguments for and against affirmative action in college admissions using Pasque’s Array of Higher Education Benefits as the framework. The author intends to use her personal perspective as well as a review of current literature on the topic to articulate the opposing viewpoints on the topic and will make an endeavor to draw logical conclusions based on the findings. Framing the Argument over Affirmative Action in College Admissions Synthesis of Literature The topic of affirmative action has remained a matter of controversy, attracting persistent debate at various levels, ever since the Nixon administration implemented the Philadelphia Plan in 1969, calling for specific minority hiring targets in construction jobs and government contracts (Altbach, 2005). Subsequently, these ideas have evolved to include within their ambit the process of college admissions also. This contributed to an intensification of the debate, encompassing some social and economical aspects. Pasque’s Array of Higher Education Benefits can be used as a framework to analyze the debate over Affirmative Action, by clarifying the public and private benefits deriving from the implementation of these policies. Proponents of affirmative action’s admissions policies see the issue from the perspectives of public (social) benefits as they feel that these policies help in affording a larger percentage of minorities the opportunity to gain access to colleges and universities. They argue that if minorities have access to higher education the society stands to benefit in terms of reforms. Diversity on campus helps students overcome racial stereotypes, thus better preparing them for the diverse, global workforce (Hicklin, 2007). Additionally, many of the arguments in favor of affirmative action are based on the egalitarian theory that “inequality is permissible so long as any inequalities result in maximizing the position of the worst off, that is, those with the fewest primary goods” (Moses, 2009). The concept of public social benefits of higher education support this ideal. Long cites studies showing that minority students, who benefited from admissions policies under affirmative action, are more likely than their white counterparts, who attended an elite college, to serve the community through increased volunteerism and community service (2007). Another key factor is that statistically, college graduates are less likely to be involved in criminal activities. Small highlights the double significance of this public social benefit as “traditionally, African-Americans have not been treated equally under the law. Past and present, throughout the country, African-Americans have been more likely to be convicted of crimes, and if convicted, sentenced to longer terms than whites.” Decreasing crime rates among minority populations implies significant financial benefits for the society as “people of color make up more than 70 percent of the prison population” (Small, 2008). The proponents, who support the admission policy, argue in the context of private social benefit that higher education results in improved quality of life, greater participation in fitness and leisure activities, informed consumer decision making, improved access to healthcare, and longer life expectancy. Therefore, it will enhance the African American’s standard of living. Also relevant are Baum’s findings, in “Education Pays,” that there is 18% gap between healthcare coverage between high school graduates and four-year College graduates (Baum, 2010). This difference represents a huge financial burden, which remains placed on public healthcare systems. Besides, minority communities and low-income communities have higher rates of smoking, high fat diets, and lack of exercise, which contribute to serious health issues. Therefore, an increase in the healthcare coverage of these groups by improving their graduation rates will translate into both public and private social benefits. Opponents of admissions policies under affirmative action pitch their arguments on private benefits of higher education, with a particular emphasis on the individual (private benefits). Their main reservation against the admission policies is that it has entailed routine denial of access for white students to colleges in favor of lesser qualified minority students, thus depriving them of the potential for higher paying jobs. Under Moses’ Libertarian theory, students should receive equal opportunity for college education regardless of past injustice or current circumstance and thus, admission policies should be race neutral (2009). While equal access to opportunity is an important consideration, statistics show that improved access for minority students creates wider gaps between those who receive higher education and those who do not, whereas in the case of whites this difference is lesser. Asian males with a college degree earn 90% more than those with only a high school diploma compared to an increase of only 50% for white male graduates (Baum, 2010). The arguments relating public economic benefits of higher education tend to be mixed. Pasque considers greater productivity, increased demand for products and services, and increased tax revenues as the direct benefits of higher education (IHEP, 1998). Opponents of affirmative action argue that these benefits can be achieved based on the total number of students graduating from a community without any reference to their race or other traits and, thus, there is no need for considering race when making admissions decisions. Proponents, on the other hand, argue that minorities receive larger financial benefits from education. This, they believe will result in less demand for public assistance from minority communities. Personal Perspective Being a white student, I can relate to the concern that students of color may be receiving unfair competitive advantage in the admission process to compensate for historical discrimination. An individual student, whose application is under consideration, may or may not have been impacted by the discrimination On the other hand, I have strong reasons to believe that there are many factors, which are given weight age in the admissions process, which I find as objectionable as the consideration of race. Moses identifies the “issues of power” as the underlying factor of the debate over affirmative action and that those in power tend to support such ideas that will give them political mileage and keep them in a position of power (2009). Small underpins this idea by pointing out that the rich, highly educated judges considering the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke nullified a program geared to increase black enrollment, yet “no one on the Court questioned the legitimacy of admission practices which reserved five seats in each class for the children of wealthy donors” (2008). Conclusion The recent court decisions seem to favor the eventual elimination of race as criterion for college admissions. However, there is still scope for universities to focus their efforts on supporting students from low-income groups. One’s financial status, and not race, is the factor to be considered for concessions in matters like college admission. There is no justification for any special concession for a rich colored student. On the other hand, supporting a financially weak student in education is reasonable. According to 2009 US Census data, 25.8 percent of African Americans and 25.3 percent of Hispanics were living in poverty as compared to 9.4 percent of whites. Thus, by focusing on present conditions of the student (economical status) rather than past injustice (race) universities can avoid much of the controversy that surrounds affirmative action. This way, they can also achieve the goals of diversifying student bodies and lending disadvantaged students a helping hand to overcome their situation. References Baum, S., Ma, J., Payea, K. (2010). Education Pays 2010: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board Policy and Advocacy Center. Hicklin, A. The Effect of Race-Based Admissions in Public Universities: Debunking the Myths about “Hopwood” and Proposition 209. Public Administration Review (Washington, D.C.) v. 67 no. 2 (March/April 2007) p. 331-40. Institute of Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (1998). Reaping The Benefits:  Defining The Public And Private Value Of Going To College. Long, M. C. Affirmative Action and Its Alternatives in Public Universities: What Do We Know?. Public Administration Review (Washington, D.C.) v. 67 no. 2 (March/April 2007) p. 315-30. Moses, M. (2009).Contested Moral Ideals and Affirmative Action: The Importance of Public Deliberation. In P.A. Pasque, N.A. Bowman, & M. Martinez (Eds.), Critical issues in higher education for the public good: qualitative, quantitative, & historical research perspectives (pp. 121-137). Kennesaw, GA: Kennesaw State University Press. Pasque, P. (2005). A Typology And Critical Analysis of The Conceptualization Of Higher Education for the Public Good and Institute of Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (1998).  Small, L. Meredith, Colorblind Constitutionalism, and the Impact on Higher Education. Journal of Law & Education v. 37 no. 3 (July 2008) p. 453-60. Read More