Evening Out the Playing Field: The Use of Affirmative Action in College Admissions
In the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to take steps towards a more equal and diverse society, and the opportunity to take steps backwards into racism and bigotry. On April 1, 2003, the Supreme Court heard the case of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which two white applicants were denied admission to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Gratz and Grutter believe that less qualified minority applicants were accepted over them because of their minority status, and that they were discriminated against. This case has reignited the debate over how and if race should be considered in college admissions. Currently, Affirmative Action in admissions is used at many universities in a number of ways, including simply being an extra “plus” in a candidate’s application, and with admissions officers trying to keep a stable percentage of each race in the student body. Diversity is beneficial to both students of color and to white students, as it prepares students for the ethnically diverse environment they will be in once they graduate. Affirmative Action is a useful tool in countering both past and ongoing discrimination. It can raise the living conditions of minorities and present them with opportunities that had been withheld from them for much of this nation’s history. Affirmative Action benefits everyone, no matter what race, and when used in intelligent ways, it helps form a more accepting and tolerant society.
African-Americans have been subjected to a long and brutal history of racism, beginning with the day Africans set their chained feet on American soil in the 1600’s. Africans were brought to the New World as slaves to work on plantations. They were treated as livestock; bought, sold, beaten, and breeded. Slaves were not allowed to learn to read, as their owners believed they would get bad ideas into their heads if they could learn. The debate over slavery and sectional differences between the northern and southern states led to the Civil War, lasting from 1860-1865. Slavery finally became illegal when the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1865 (the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln and only outlawed slavery in theory, and only in some states). When Reconstruction began in 1865, the question was raised of what to do with the newly emancipated slaves, the majority of whom were unskilled, unlettered, and had no property. Congress created the Freedmen’s Bureau on March 3, 1865 as a solution to this problem. It was intended to be a primitive welfare agency, providing food, clothes, medical care, and education to African-Americans and white refugees. The Freedmen’s Bureau taught approximately 200,000 African-Americans to read. These freedmen wished to learn to read largely to close the gap between themselves and whites and so that they might read the word of God written in the Bible (Bailey 491).
However, the southern states found many ways to counteract any progress Freedmen made in improving their situation. An example of this repression was the passing of the Black Codes. First adopted in 1865 by Mississippi, they were designed to regulate the affairs of emancipated African-Americans. They ensured a stable African-American labor force by imposing harsh penalties if African-Americans did not complete their labor contracts, such as forfeiture of wages, or being brought back to work by force. Many southern states followed Mississippi’s example, and passed Black Codes of their own, which varied slightly state by state. Some Black Codes made it illegal for African-Americans to buy or lease land, and they could be punished for idleness by being put on a chain gang. A universal restriction of all the Black Codes was the exclusion of African-Americans from serving on a jury, ensuring that no African-American could receive justice in a court of law (Bailey 493). When African-Americans were enfranchised in 1870, they were jubilant. However, Southern African-Americans soon realized that if they attempted to vote, they could face unemployment, physical harm, or eviction. The Ku Klux Klan was partly responsible for the physical violence inflicted on African-Americans, as much was inflicted by individuals. Nevertheless, the Ku Klux Klan, created in 1866, was the most threatening organized hate group to African-Americans. KKK chapters existed all over the south, and their White Riders spread terror wherever they were spotted. They used intimidation tactics ranging from setting a cross on fire in a victim’s front yard to public murder. These tactics were used to keep African-Americans “in their place.” The KKK specifically went after African-American leaders, leaving the African-American community with no guidance (Bailey 503).
When Reconstruction ended in 1877 and former Confederate states were able to regain control of their state governments, the conditions of Southern African-Americans further deteriorated. States passed numerous laws similar to the Black Codes in their attempts at keeping African-Americans in a subservient and inferior position. These laws, called the Jim Crow Laws, separated African-Americans and whites, authorizing different (and almost always inferior) restrooms, water fountains, theaters, and other public facilities for African-Americans to use. In 1896, the system of segregation was upheld by federal courts in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth African-American, did not sit in the “colored car” on an East Louisiana Railroad train, and was jailed. Plessy went to court and argued that forcing him to sit in a separate car violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The judge in the case found Plessy guilty. The judge said that the state of Louisiana could only regulate railroad companies that only ran in Louisiana. Because East Louisiana Railroad was an interstate railroad company, Louisiana had no jurisdiction in its actions. Plessy appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, who again found Plessy guilty, and ruled that “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional, and thus legalized the system of segregation (Hartin “Plessy...”).
There was a large discrepancy between actions at the state level to actions at the federal level concerning race. Although after 1877 the federal government did not actively take up the cause of Civil Rights and usually let state governments make decisions regarding race, it has passed numerous significant pieces of legislation between 1865 and 1877 designed to improve the status of African-Americans. Although the government’s efforts were genuine, often its legislation had little or no real impact and was legally flawed. For example, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, made African-Americans citizens, forced the federal government to protect their rights, and give everyone due process of law, regardless of race (Dykes). Unfortunately, it prohibited the violation of civil rights by the government, but not by individuals. The 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870 and explicitly decreed that African-Americans and ex-slaves had the right to vote. Regardless, many southern states imposed poll taxes, created literacy tests, and changed voter registration laws, all intended to discourage African-Americans from voting. The federal government did not intervene, and therefore many African-Americans were disenfranchised. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, which also attempted to improve the legal status of African-Americans, guaranteed equal accommodations in public and forbade discrimination in the process of selecting a jury. However, in 1883, much of the Civil Rights Act was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases (Bailey 520).
As America entered the twentieth century, there was renewed interest in Civil Rights as Progressivism and other social and political movements sought to directly improve the lives of American citizens. At this time, the South was extremely segregated. Facilities used by African-Americans and whites were completely separate, but a far cry from equal. African-Americans were forced to attend inferior schools, use inferior transportation, and live inferior lives. In 1954, the system of segregation was challenged. The NAACP took up five cases of students who wished to attend the white school and they were argued together by Thurgood Marshall. He argued that segregation in education violated the 14th Amendment. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional (Hartin “Brown...”). This case marked the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, which lasted through the 1960’s. The Civil Rights Movement was a struggle for equality and an end to all types of segregation. One positive outcome of the Civil Rights Movement was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress passed Public Law 82-352 which outlawed discrimination on the basis of race and sex in hiring, firing, and promotion (“Teaching...”). By the end of the 1960’s, African-Americans had battled slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination in every aspect of their lives.
Had they won the battle? Currently, African-Americans are fighting for economic equality. In the year 2000, 42.5% of African-Americans had an income of less than $25,000, compared to only 27.4% of whites (“Distribution...”). These figures represent a serious problem of economic inequality between races. One method of evening out the economic playing field is through Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is the effort to make universities more diverse and alleviate economic inequality by increasing minority enrollment in colleges and employment in the workplace. In the 1970’s, Affirmative Action meant bringing more African-Americans onto university campuses and into the workplace. Since then, more African-Americans have attended college, but they are still underrepresented in student bodies compared to their percentage of the American population (Jost 740). As of the year 2000, African Americans made up 12.3% of the U.S. population, most of whom do not receive their college diplomas (United...). Currently, only 17% of African-Americans get college degrees, compared to 30% of whites and 40% of Asians (Kantrowitz 31). If racial preferences were eliminated, these percentages become even more unequal. As Theodore Shaw of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund stresses, “The overwhelming majority of students who apply to selective institutions are still white. If we are not conscious of selecting minority students, they’re not going to be there” (Jost 739). We must make a conscious effort to make even out the playing field, and that means some people must give up opportunities for others to receive them.
Although Affirmative Action was designed specifically to aid minorities, it has been proven that its use has far-ranging benefits for all members of society. It provides opportunities for minorities to get into selective universities by giving them a slight boost in their applications. Apart from the benefits of the actual boost, minorities may decide to apply to schools they would not have considered before, because knowing that they are wanted at the school they are applying gives them more confidence. Affirmative Action has helped minorities pursue higher education, and therefore receive more high-level jobs. When minorities start to get these jobs, the disparities between the rich and the poor decrease, and hopefully racism will subside. When people start realizing people of color can reach these economic heights, the fact that everyone is equal will be undeniable.
Racial diversity is desirable in the classroom because it brings with it diverse personalities, experiences and morals. A diverse student body raises ideas and present viewpoints not present in a more homogeneous group. Students learn to interact with people different from themselves, with varying backgrounds and outlooks. Students are influenced by alternate opinions from those they have been taught by their families, which often helps them mold their own views. Working in a diverse environment helps students speak out, even if they feel everyone may not agree with their opinions because diverse environments are generally more accepting of differences. Taking race into account in admissions “...not only promotes the integration ideal first realized in Brown v. Board of Education, but also helps create educational environments that improve basic learning and better equips students for an increasingly diverse society” (Jost 753). Diversity can positively change people’s character and their views.
Affirmative Action also attempts to atone for past and ongoing racism and discrimination. African-Americans were denied basic educational opportunities up until Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement, which was only fifty years ago. Because of this, the importance of education has not yet become entrenched in the African-American community. This is not the fault of African-Americans, and the government must provide educational opportunities partly to instill the idea that a good education is essential to life. It is to be expected that because African-Americans have been denied an education for so long they would still have a disproportionately low number of college students. Affirmative Action attempts to increase that number, and make it proportional to the percentage of African-Americans in the American population. Some critics of Affirmative Action, noting the new African-American middle class, feel that we do not need Affirmative Action any more. However, it is only logical to at the minimum continue the program until their percentage in college student bodies equals African-Americans’ percentage of the population. In addition to this, I believe Affirmative Action should continue until we see enough minorities in higher education so that those students become comfortable and do not feel isolated or that they must represent the sentiment of their race. Affirmative Action must not end until minorities feel comfortable enough with their numbers to be themselves and not a stereotype or delegate of their race. However, the policy of Affirmative Action has come under fire as a result of several lawsuits that have reached the Supreme Court, the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.
Both the cases of Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger will become landmark cases in race relations and education no matter what the outcome. Gratz and Grutter, who are both white, believe that the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor has discriminated against them by rejecting them for less qualified minority applicants. The University of Michigan uses a point system (see Appendix A) to evaluate applicants, in which 20 points is given for being an “underrepresented” race, socioeconomically disadvantaged, or a scholarship athlete. This point system has come under heavy scrutiny, as critics of Affirmative Action are quick to point out that a perfect SAT score only yields 12 points, which, under first consideration, seems very unfair (Kantrowitz 34). But it must be taken into consideration that there are lots of ways to earn points, and the proportion of points awarded for one category to another is insignificant, as the same total number of points can be reached by receiving points in a variety of categories. In reality, few outright quotas exist, as systems are generally much more subjective and more individualized (Kantrowitz 33). Judge Duggan of the Federal District Court in Detroit, who had upheld the University of Michigan admissions system in 2000, explained that “a University must carefully design its system to fall between [one] that completely fails to achieve a meaningful degree of diversity [and] a rigid quota. [With Michigan’s system] there are many factors that might entitle an applicant to a preference, thereby making the results of any one factor less predictable” (Wilgoren). In an earlier case regarding Affirmative Action, the Supreme court ruled that although quotas are unconstitutional, race can be a plus factor in a minority’s application. This was the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, decided 1978. Allan Bakke was a white applicant to University of California at Davis Medical School and was rejected twice. He had a higher grade point average than some minorities who were admitted, and he believed U.C. Davis had discriminated against him. The Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional and therefore, Davis, with its 16% minority quota, had discriminated against Bakke. However, the Court also decided that race could be a “positive factor” in admissions (“Regents...”). This case has set the guidelines for the University of Michigan cases, as it means that if University of Michigan’s system is decided to be a quota, its admissions system will be declared unconstitutional, and that it is constitutional to include race as an admissions factor.
The University of Michigan lawyers are making the case that because Affirmative Actions improves everyone’s learning environment, diversity is a compelling governmental interest and should be protected. Judge Duggan has said that “...A racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant educational benefits such that diversity, in the context of higher education, constitutes a compelling governmental interest. Although fixed racial quotas are not necessary to achieving that goal, the consideration of an applicant’s race during the admissions process necessarily is” (Wilgoren). Studies at the University of Michigan have shown that a diverse learning environment enhances critical thinking skills, increases tolerance and understanding of differences, augments motivation in civic activities, and helps students prepare for living in the diverse society we all inhabit. Other studies have shown that interaction between ethnicities has a positive influence on retention rates, self-confidence, leadership abilities and satisfaction with students’ college (Jost 746). Lee Bollinger, the former University of Michigan president, stresses that “...For our students to better understand the diverse country and world they inhabit, they must be immersed in a campus culture that allows them to study with, argue with, and become friends with students who may be different from them. It broadens the mind, and the intellect- essential goals of education” (Kantrowitz 32).
The University of Michigan lawyers can also argue that the University is attempting to atone for past discrimination. According to Stephen Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, “...The Supreme Court has been pretty clear that you can’t use the justification of a past societal discrimination as a ground for a race-based admissions policy at an institution that did not itself discriminate” (Jost 741). However, new evidence may give the defense lawyers grounds to argue that U.M. did discriminate. Apparently, University of Michigan refused to desegregate its fraternities and sororities until 1960. It did not hire its first African-American professor until 1967 (Jost 742).
The prosecution lawyers can argue that the University of Michigan admissions system is a quota and that Gratz and Grutter were discriminated against because the the system has separate guidelines for minorities. To prove that the University of Michigan is a quota, the prosecution may argue that the system consistently reserves and fills a certain number of places for minorities, and thus is a quota. However, the prosecution also has limits to what it can argue for. For example, arguing for a completely color-blind admissions system may not be successful because the Bakke case allows race to be considered in admissions. Part of the reasoning behind this decision is that ignoring racial inequalities by completely ignoring race does not get rid of the problem of racism. As Supreme Court Justice Blackmun says, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way” (Jost 753). The prosecution may argue that the University of Michigan admissions system is a quota, but it is unlikely that they will be successful in demanding a completely color-blind admissions policy.
People who do not understand the aims of Affirmative Action often feel resentment towards what they feel is unfair preference being given to the undeserving. They do not feel that racial diversity is an important educational goal. For example, in 1996, Proposition 209 was passed by California voters and outlawed the government and schools from giving preferential treatment to anyone in public employment or public education based on race or sex. The University of California was therefore banned from considering race in its admissions process and thus began to give preference to the socioeconomically disadvantaged instead (Attorney General).
The are many ways to achieve diversity, whether it be through giving students of color boosts on their applications, automatically admitting the top percentage of each high school class, or simply by basing preferences of economic status. There are problems and benefits with each system. Using race as a plus factor is the most popular means of achieving diversity, as you can be as subjective and individualized as you want about it. This system is used by many universities, including the University of Michigan. However, it creates resentment among certain members of the “majority” who feel they are experiencing “reverse-discrimination.” Some say that guaranteeing admittance to the top percent of each high school class cannot be viewed as discriminatory. This system is used by the Florida public university system, which admits the top 20% of each graduating class, and Texas, which admits the top 10%. It can be viewed as unfair, however, as some public high schools are much better than others. In addition, by viewing this system as a means of achieving diversity you are admitting that the public schools are segregated because if all the top students of each state were proportionately minority students, there would be no need for Affirmative Action. But by looking at the top students in each high school as a way of achieving diversity, the schools must be segregated. Giving preference to the socioeconomically disadvantaged is fair because they all are truly disadvantaged. This system is used by California (and Michigan, as it awards 20 points for being socioeconomically disadvantaged [see Appendix A]). However, it does not guarantee racial diversity, which is the fundamental purpose of Affirmative Action.
I believe that Affirmative Action is a program that should be integrated into every institution’s admissions evaluation process. In addition to helping minorities, I think Affirmative Action also benefits me. I have been exposed to different lifestyles, opinions, and personalities. This diversity helps me form more unique ideas of my own. If everyone were the same, it would be harder for me to get the courage to be different, to be myself. But with many different people expressing their opinions, I can feel more confident that my opinion will be tolerated. I can make friends with people from various backgrounds, and learn understanding, compassion, and how to relate with others.
I know that when I apply to colleges, at least one will reject me. It will not tell me why I am not good enough, but I will try not to blame myself. And I know I will not blame others. I will not blame my African-American classmate with lower grades and SAT scores than me who got in when I did not. Even if that were the sole reason I was denied admission, I understand I am being sacrificed for a good reason. I think I could “take one for the team.” The importance of providing opportunities for those who have had little ever since they arrived in this country should take precedence over the few white students who will, inevitably, be rejected even though they were “qualified.”
I have a friend named Molly. She is African-American and lives in the suburbs with a caring family who values education. She goes to my school, an expensive private school which prides itself on being diverse. She has never personally been discriminated against. However, she is the girl who gets into that college instead of me. I know that people like her do not deserve extra boosts in their application because of their race. But Molly does get them, because the application readers do not discern between her and the African-American girl who goes to a practically all-white public school in Kentucky, where she is isolated and mocked because of her race. Both of these girls get the same boost for being African-American. Doesn’t seem fair does it? However, I believe that if we insist on making these distinctions between those who have suffered as a result of their race and those who have not, we are weakening our cause. Everyone of a certain race must get the boost, or no one will. And this is a distinction no one is qualified to make. We have no right to make that distinction, as it is personal experience, and it cannot be made by answering questions on a college application. Instead of resenting Molly, I will be happy that she has the opportunity she had growing up, and did not have to get it in a college application. Her parents got a break, and moved into an upper-middle class neighborhood, and raised their family in a loving and comfortable home. Molly is the what I hope will be the result of Affirmative Action.
And once we get a whole lot of girls like Molly, should we end Affirmative Action? I believe that is a question we cannot answer now, but that we will know when the time is right to end it. Who knows for far we will come 50 years from now? Will there be another Civil Rights movement? Or a backlash to the new prosperity of minorities? Because we have no way of foreseeing the answers to these questions, there is no way to know when Affirmative Action will end. And no one knows whether it will end. Will society always be racist? No one knows. But we hope, some day, we all will live together peacefully, in racial harmony. But if not, Affirmative Action could stay forever. The only way we can attempt to alter the future of race relations in America is through programs like Affirmative Action, designed to even out the playing field and help society be more tolerant of differences. Affirmative Action profits all students, and has far reaching effects, from improving the quality of education to raising the economic status of minorities. Programs like Affirmative Action will continue to be implemented in the future, as we should always look for ways to bring justice to those discriminated against, and to push America to be more: more equal, more loving, more open-minded.