Does the Open Admissions Policy at City College Represented Citizenship - Essay Example

In the common denotation by which it is originally known, citizenship refers to the status of a citizen or an individual who is a recognized subject or member of a state or commonwealth. A citizen is similarly described as an inhabitant of a city or town who is entitled to rights and privileges whether as a native or a person naturalized at birth. The corresponding rights and duties of a citizen herein are those of a freeman, owing to the long and rough history of the civil rights movement that struggled forward to help claim the rights and liberty of the disadvantaged groups back then. Given all these, I am brought to agree with the basic definition of citizenship except that, in reality, the degree to which a citizen’s rights and freedom are fulfilled remains a function of the issue on inequality that has inevitably prevailed in the American society in several aspects.

         On the other hand, the Open Admissions policy at City College permits any student who graduated from high school or received a GED certificate to attend college and have the opportunity to take a course in order to obtain a degree in a certain field. To analyze between this and the concept of citizenship under consideration, hence, a reasonable connection may be drawn in the sense that citizenship appears disembodied within the Open Admissions policy through the terms ‘any student’ which seem rather more general and pay no regard to a student’s status of citizenship. It occurs that, in the light of understanding the principle of Open Admissions, a student need not be a U.S. citizen to be eligible for enrolment in college or admission to avail a higher level of education. By the findings of Jerome Karabel via “The Politics of Structural Change in American Higher Education,” detailing the case for the City University of New York (CUNY), Karabel states “Of the numerous reforms introduced into American higher education during the 1960s, perhaps none did more to reduce inequality of educational opportunity than the adoption of Open Admissions” (Hermanns, et al). Evidently, in this statement, Open Admissions serve as an inclusion in the system which brings to further resolution what citizenship alone has been unable to settle.

         Apparently, it is through Open Admissions policy that the Consensus of the mid-1960s becomes refreshed in its endeavor to signify the American orientation to ethnic difference and diversity which, according to Nathan Glazer’s research for “The Emergence of an American Ethnic Pattern”, is affected by three decisive measures. While one such decision primarily considers that the entire world is allowed to enter the U.S., the other is comprised in not compelling any group to renounce or replace its distinct identity upon successful migration and residence in the American land (Takaki, 1994). Open Admissions policy likely characterizes how the Consensus and its substance must be enforced to the extent of abolishing any form of inequality not only in reference to the opportunity in pursuing studies up to the tertiary stage but even in gaining access to a fair socio-economic structure.

         It turns out, to this point, Open Admissions policy had reasonable grounds on emerging to loosen what remains as unpleasant or severe in view of the rigid terms and limitations that surround citizenship. In this age of globalization where we have become increasingly exposed to different cultures, living alternatives, and various ideas on enhancing both technology and economy here and abroad, and have gradually learned to acknowledge foreign influence in our way of life, I suppose Open Admissions policy bears compatible implications of academic growth on social, cultural, economic, as well as political areas of progress. Citizenship in itself indicates the rights and privileges of those who have been identified as citizens, however, we have seen how the society works by nature and how it often exhibits that it could be nothing more than an exclusive label. Somewhere, a number of people still experience social oppression, racial injustice, and whose rights and liberties are suppressed, and for which such label or status would not suffice to provide a remedy. With the rule of Open Admissions, nevertheless, we can imagine that despite all necessary restrictions of the policy, ethnic diversity consequently reduces harsh discrimination as learners of diverse ethnic origins outnumber the percentage of a citizenry capable of exercising acts that promote inequality as a whole.