Affirmative Action in Higher Education - Literature review Example

Affirmative Action in Higher Education Clegg (1999) documents an insight on whether ethni and race should be a consideration that culminates to discrimination on the admission of college students. He highlights that though this might not be true, it is of relevance that the issue of affirmative action in higher education is tackled (1). Consequently, Llong (2003) documents that race in college admission is becoming a significantly complex issue as a result of the increasing relevance of college admission and the competitiveness to access higher education. This necessitates the need to implement affirmative action in higher education to ensure minority student enrollment (4). This brings in the main question, what is affirmative action? Affirmative action has been defined by Myers (2005) as ensuring all the applicants, be it in employment, or admission at school are treated without regard to their color, sex, race, religion or nationality (6). Niemann and Maruyama (2005) assert that affirmative action is necessary as it provides an avenue for individuals who have been discriminated in the past to acquire higher education. Affirmative action in higher education is also viewed as a form of compensation to the minority for injustices that had previously been inflicted on them. Affirmative action is implemented in a variety of areas like education, employment, health, and housing. The emphasis of this paper will be affirmative action in higher education. The interest groups of affirmative action in higher education will be outlined. Ongoing debate on the supporters and those against affirmative action in higher education will be discussed. Finally options suggested for the affirmative action in higher education and their relevance will be outlined. Rauf (2005) documents that race and ethnicity is among the factors that many colleges and universities consider prior to admission. Other factors included and evaluated in the admission process include the grades, talents, and extracurricular activities (11-13). Martin and Spenner document that affirmative action is a move to address the injustice on the minority group and is aimed at enabling them to have a level ground with their counter parts (623). There are mainly two participants; the universities and the applicants. As the affirmative action is meant to address the issue of race and ethnicity, the supporter applicants of the affirmative action in higher education are the Blacks and Latinos. However, Niemann and Maruyama (2005) documents that the Blacks and Latinos are not assured of the effectiveness of the affirmative action in higher education as they feel they are still under represented in the institutions of higher learning (414). Opposing applicants to the affirmative action in higher education are the Asian Americans and the Americans. Schmidt (2008) reports that they are for the 10 percent plan program compared to the affirmative action in higher education (1). Asians and the Americans are of the opinion that the affirmative action in higher education oppresses them more than the minority groups. This is since they believe that better qualified Asians and Americans are left out in the admission and instead it allows for the admission of lesser qualified Blacks and Latinos (Massey, 2004, 783-784). Universities and colleges are the other participants in the affirmative action in higher education. Affirmative action has garnered support at UT-Austin, UW-Madison, and UC-Berkeley which has been documented to enhance diversity in these institutions (Lipson 2007, 996). Long (2003) affirms this move as it is illustrated that majority of the institutions are aimed at increasing the number of minority individuals in their institutions (30). This is not the case for all institutions as others are for the removal of the affirmative action in higher education. Minority groups that are majorly affected as a result of lack of affirmative action in higher education are the Hispanic and Black students. This has led the minority groups that have gained admission to institutions of higher learning to have an interest in changing the current situation. These students want to see to it that affirmative action is enforced in the institutions of higher learning, so that their counterparts can have an opportunity to access higher level education. This is since they believe that racial preferences in higher education institutions do not match the students’ ability resulting to academic mishaps. They also predispose the black and Latino students to psychological problems as the SAT scores administered to them are below the institutional average, hampering their self-esteem (Camille, 2009). Affirmative action exercised in the institutions of higher learning has its benefits. To begin with, it has been attributed to the diversity in student bodies that culminate educational benefits. Also higher institutions of higher learning where affirmative action is practiced have been voiced to have enhanced cross- racial harmony among the students. This enables them to let go stereotyped attitudes and prepares them to work more efficiently in a diverse work place and in the society as a whole. Affirmative action has been reported to be beneficial as it culminates to diversity which brings social and educational benefits. These benefits are accrued by students when they collaborate with students of other races in institutions of higher learning. Results of this diversity have been elaborated in his work where he evidently portrays those white students who were racially diversified as being more motivated to achieve. In addition, these students had boosted self- confidence and scored higher in tests that evaluated critical thinking. These white students were also able to comprehend social unity, accommodate other peoples’ opinions, and were more likely to have friends from assorted racial milieu (The Washington Post 2003, 42). Chafe (1995) asserts that affirmative action provides a guarantee for equal opportunities to the minority groups. The author confers this to be as a result of the historical consequences of racism; hence the pro affirmative action would not want this replicated in the institutions of higher learning. The author elaborates that for people to have equal opportunities in life, they have to have an equal start. This however is not replicated for the African Americans and the Native Americans as they are among the minority poor and are not exposed to the same opportunities as the whites. This denies them an equal start, a situation which sidelines because of their race and affirmative action in higher education is their only solace to share in the resources bestowed to the few “whites”. The author consequently views that it is important that the minority groups are viewed as individuals and not as belonging to a particular group of people. Affirmative action in higher education has been implemented by the organization structures of many universities and has been found to be effective. Though it does not provide the minority with an equal start, it soothes their wounds by giving them a gate way to acquire higher education learning (B1-B2). It is of essence to evaluate the pitfalls that encompass lack of affirmative action in higher education to both participants. Firstly, it breeds resentment in the group that has been discriminated. These college students may become violent and want to avenge for lacking admission as a result of their race and ethnicity. Also, lack of affirmative action compromises the mission of institutions of higher learning as intellectual ability seconds race and ethnicity. Moreover, lack of affirmative action is against the social policy since if a student has the appropriate grades for admission, this should not be hampered on the basis of his race and ethnicity. In conjunction, lack of affirmative action in institutions of higher education translates to stigmatization of the students who have gained admission. This is since the employer will be of the opinion that they did not actually qualify, but their race gained them admission to the institution of higher learning (Clegg, 1999, 3-4). Affirmative action in higher learning has not gone uncontested. This is evidenced by recourses against affirmative action in higher education. When the supporters of discrimination were questioned as concerns their behavior, they responded that ethnicity and race formed just a small package of the major factors that needed to be addressed. Other supporters of discrimination in higher education supported it by giving three reasons. To begin with, they reported that prophylactic justification cushioned those who were discriminating from themselves being discriminated. Consequently, the diversity justification given was that a group of people needed to be represented in higher education institutions. In addition, the remedial justification given came in as a compensation for discrimination that might have previously been inflicted on the current discriminating party (Clegg, 1999, 2-3). In conjunction, Ravitch (1997) has stipulated that where affirmative action is rampant, it is doing more harm than good. He commences by evaluating the rise in admission to colleges across all races. Hispanics was the highest with a rise by 4.6%, followed by Native Americans with a rise by 3.1%, Asian- Americans followed with a rise by 3%, and African- Americans rose by 1.7%. The author used this to evidently portray that the affirmative action reduced the racial disparity in enrollment to college. However, the author challenges the affirmative action by creating a mismatch in the students and the colleges they were enrolled to. The affirmative action pushed minorities to institutions of higher learning, but curtailed their success from these institutions. He attributed to the minorities being sent to institutions of higher learning to learn the basic skills, a move he describes as fraud and hence calls for recourse against the affirmative action (1). Affirmation to the challenge against affirmative action in higher education is also evidenced by Fields (2003).The author outlines that different plans are delineated to meet the needs of different racial minorities as some favor Asian Americans while others favored African Americans. The affirmative action did not level the ground for all minority groups, it just made some more privileged compared to others. The author hence necessitates the need for alternatives to the affirmative action that would level the opportunities for all (1). According to the researches that have been conducted and the methods of resolutions that have been reached at, the most possible solution is to establish the policy of affirmative action as it will do away with the issues of racial segregation or discrimination. A modification can also be done or change done on this policy by deleting the percentage that is to be added to the Blacks and the Latinos when it comes to issues dealing with college entry or admission (Ravitch, 1997). Options have been cited that could be used in the place of affirmative action. One such option is the percentage admittance plan which has effectively been implemented in California, Texas, and Florida (Horn and Flores, 2003). This method guarantees admission of the top high school students to top colleges regardless of their race or ethnicity. This is replicated with four percent top high school students gaining direct admission to the University of California. Florida State University System guarantees admission to the top 20 percent high school grandaunts. This method encompasses all high schools diversified by race and ethnicity, ensuring that even the minority are represented in the institutions of higher learning for affirmative action to be effectively enforced (Long 2003, 3). In conclusion, affirmative action in higher education is important as it offers the minority groups an opportunity to access higher education. However, this has not been the case as they voice that they are still under represented in higher education institutions. Benefits of the affirmative action have been outlined both for the minority group, Asians and Americans, and the institutions of higher education. Such benefits include: diversification, removal of stereo types, ability to work in a diverse society. Demerits have also been outlined on the lack of affirmative action. They are stipulated as: discrimination is against social policy; it leads to stigmatization, leads to resentment, and compromises the social policy of the learning institutions. This heightens the dilemma on whether affirmative action in higher learning is beneficial or the short comings outweigh its relevance (Camille, 2009, 2). This is however cushioned by the alternatives to the affirmative action in higher education like percentage method, and restructure of the SAT admission exam. This essay therefore concludes that extensive research needs to be done on the effectiveness of the alternatives to the affirmative action in higher education before it is phased of. Bibliography Camille, C., (2009). “Affirmative- Action Programs for Minority Students: Right in Theory, Wrong in Practice.” Chronicle of Higher Education 55(29), Retrieved November 3, 2011. Chafe, W., (1995). “Providing Guarantees of Equal Opportunity.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 41 (42), B1-B2, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Clegg, R., (Winter, 1999). “Racial and Ethnic Preferences in Higher Education.” National Forum 79(1), 32-35, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Fields, C., (2003). “Colleges Prepare for Possible End to Affirmative Action.” Black Issues in Higher Education 20 (2), Retrieved November 3, 2011. Horn, C. L., and Flores, M. S., (2003). Percentage Plans in College Admissions: A Comparative Analysis of Three States’ Experiences. Cambridge: The Civil Rights Project. Lipson, D., (Fall, 2007). “Embracing Diversity: The Institutionalization of Affirmative Action as Diversity Management at UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, and UW-Madison .” Law & Social Inquiry 32(4), 985-1026, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Long, B., (2003). “Diversity by Any Other name: Are There Viable Alternatives to Affirmative Action in Higher Education?” The Western Journal of Black Studies 27(1), 30-33, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Martin, N. and Spenner, K., 2009, “Capital Conversion and Accumulation : A Social Portrait of Legacies at an Elite University.” Res High Education 50, 623-648, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Massey, G., 2004, “Thinking about Affirmative Action: Arguments Supporting Preferential Policies.” Review of Policy Research 21(6), 783-795, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Myers, K, C., 2005, “A Cure for Discrimination? Affirmative Action and the Case of California Proposition 209”. IZA DP No.1674, 1-28, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Niemann, Y. & Maruyama, G., 2005, “Inequities in Higher Education: Issues and Promising Practices in a World Ambivalent about Affirmative Action.” Journal of Social Issues 61(3), 407-426, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Rauf, D., 2005, “Admissions confidential.” Careers and college, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Ravitch, D., 1997, “How Affirmative Action Harms Minorities .” Chronicle of Higher Education 160 (11), Retrieved November 3, 2011. Schmidt, P., 2008, “Study Challenges Assumptions About Affirmative-Action Bans.” Chronicle of Higher Education 54(22), Retrieved November 3, 2011. The Washington Post, (October 9, 2003). “The Evidence Is In: Diversity Helps Students.” The Washington Post, Retrieved November 3, 2011. Read More