Status, Not Race, Should Be Basis of Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court of the United States is about to hear a case that may change the status quo on affirmative action. Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin is going to be heard this term and may cause constitutional interpretations to be changed such that any form of affirmative action is seen as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Race could cease to be a factor in college admissions and employment, as it currently is at countless universities and employers across the U.S., including the University of Wisconsin. While I believe that society may be far along enough to leave race in and of itself behind, I feel that rather than ending affirmative action, it should be adjusted to better fit the realities of society. Affirmative action should be focused on socioeconomic factors rather than race.

As reported by NPR, Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, both white females, were rejected from the University of Texas in 2008. The two women filed suit because race was one of many factors that Texas considered in rejecting them. If these two women were rejected solely on the basis of race, this case is a clear violation of Equal Protection. However, there is more to it than that.

Under Grutter v. Bollinger, universities are allowed to employ affirmative action in the interest of diversity, as shown by the Legal Information Institute. Points and quota systems have been ruled unconstitutional throughout the years. Grutter also includes a sunset clause, meaning the decision will no longer be applicable in 2028. Fisher v. The University of Texas may have Grutter v. Bollinger completely over turned.

I hesitantly support an end to racial affirmative action because it approaches the issue from the wrong side. This is not to say that diversity is not something to be valued or that those who live under difficult circumstances should be punished for their disposition. Affirmative action should be adjusted to better fit reality.

Race should not be the guiding factor; socioeconomic status should be. There is a good deal of correlation between race and poverty that should not be ignored. Issues of poverty often stem from our nation's stained history on issues of race. I do not believe that people of similar financial situations and upbringing should be distinguished on the basis of race.

It is, however, hard to make the case that a person who grew up in a gang-ridden, impoverished, underfunded inner city should not receive preferential treatment over someone who did not have to overcome those obstacles. It is also hard to make the case to perpetuate an undereducated working class, which likely and tragically will only extend generational poverty and inequality.

In my lifetime, I have had the opportunity to meet and befriend people that have overcome such difficulty. I have many friends who are first generation immigrants and many friends who speak Spanish at home. As a student, I could not comprehend overcoming a language barrier. These friends have often overcome a great deal, and that should definitely be a factor in their admission decisions. The color of their skin should not.

While race remains an important issue in America today, affirmative action based on race is the wrong remedy for the issue. There is a strong case that affirmative action, as executed by this university and countless others across the nation, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. However, one could make the case just as easily that not using socioeconomic status as a factor in college admissions is just as much a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it denies people equal opportunity based on where and how they grew up.

Affirmative action programs should continue based on students' socioeconomic backgrounds rather than on their race, and while there is a correlation between race and socioeconomic status, it should be applied equally to people of all ethnicities and races that have had to overcome a great deal. Affirmative action as it stands oversimplifies a serious issue. I hope the Fisher v. the University of Texas case yields results that send America in the right direction.

Spencer Lindsay ([e-mail]) is a freshman majoring in political science.

This piece first appeared in The Badger Herald: www.badgerherald.com Questions: Signe Brewster, Editor-in-Chief, The Badger Herald |[e-mail] [phone] x101

 

Follow The Badger Herald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/badgerherald

Comments

[USA456]

12:01 AM on 05/09/2012

Here is an idea: The solution is to have either the federal government or the states pass legislation that mandates that a certain class rank and/or standardized test score guarantees a certain percentage of students (at least 65%) automatic admission into a school without regard to any other considerations such as personal statements or recommendations; this way, it makes absolute no difference what your name, race, gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status is. At least 65% is fair to the schools so they can still pursue their own business interests such as sports, diversity, alumni, etc.

Most applicants do not realize that generally legally protected rights in regard to test scores or class rank or GPA DO NOT EXIST. See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-02/harvard-targeted-in-u-s-asian-american-discrimination-probe.html or read the book "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton" by Jerome Karabel to get more insight into the games with the admissions process; Asians are the Jews of today. Also, personal statements, athletics, alumni and checking off a name next to your race PRE-DATES race-based affirmative action.

I support socioeconomic-affirmative action but not if the intent of it is to infringe on a school's 1st amendment right to look out for their business interests. If money is free speech, how is racial diversity not free speech?

[Mark In LA]

12:53 PM on 05/02/2012

This is another feel-good sounding end around to get race the predominant factor in admissions. If a student cannot compete based on the normal objective measures, what good does it do society or the person in putting them in a position they may not be capable of handling. The idea that these poor kids are going to be devastated by not getting into the college of their choice is another excuse. What about them being devastated when they find out they can't "be anything they want to be". There are plenty of avenues that allow a marginal student a chance to get up to speed with the better students, if the student really is capable. A women I worked with got a BS from a Cal State campus and a masters from Caltech. Nobody is holding you back because you don't quality to get into UC Berkeley without racial brownie points.

[J R M]

10:22 PM on 04/30/2012

You have systematic accomplishment differences due to cultural differences in child rearing and focus upon education. The children of poor immigrants from areas that value education (typically Eastern Europe, India, and China) do far better (and work far harder) than most of the US born children. Most of the children in my daughter's Honors and IB high school classes are the children of educated immigrants.

I would allocate fewer spaces to school quotas. You are going to have to get your STEM students by competitive entry, not by school quota. The fields are demanding and ruthless in washing out all students who do not measure to their standards.

My 10th grade daughter is probably studying 60 hours a week with her 6 IB/AP/college level classes. And that level of study is not unusual among her IB classmates. Universities want such hard working and disciplined students.

[luapmi2]

03:16 AM on 05/01/2012

If you're directing your kids into STEM you are goofy beyond words. Indian and Chinese engineers are very good, work for $10,000 a year and data is very easily transmitted globally.

I kicked my kids butt when they said engineering.

[HPMGSam]

04:20 PM on 04/30/2012

Thank you for writing this. Race and socioeconomic status are inextricably linked by the history of our country, and it's the socioeconomic legacy that needs to be addressed when it comes to leveling the playing field.

When a university says that it wants a diverse student body for "diverse backgrounds", it drives me nuts when they are pulling the minority students from private school/boarding school/other areas of privilege (not to say that minority students in these situations don't have a different experience from their white counterparts, but its not what universities are technically supposed to be getting at).

[BlairCase]

09:51 AM on 05/01/2012

In Texas, most affirmative action benefits go to Mexican-American students from middle- and upper-middle class families. Mexican-american students, of course, are the majority in Texas. Anglo students make up 48 percent of the freshman class at the University of Texas, but many of the Anglo students graduated from high schools that were predominantly Hispanic, so it's not as though they've never interacted with Mexican-American students until college, They grew with Mexican Americans. As a result, there's not much cultural differences between Anglo and Mexican-American styudents, particularly at the college level. A second- or third-generation Mexican-American family is like a second- or third-generation Italian-american or Irish-American family. What do you think is different about Mexican-American students?

[greyhound2]

03:14 PM on 04/30/2012

Jobs and promotions should go to the most qualified, not somebody's idea of social engineering.

[mira chancleta]

02:17 PM on 04/30/2012

Having attended & worked at UT-Austin&UW-Madison,, I KNOW that both schools receive HUGE amounts of Federal and State funds.

THIS factor alone dictates the degree to which a school"supports"any A/A policy and where to do this where it is most visible?

In the faculty?
NO!

In the administration?
Mostly NO!, with a few token-hires to give the "impression"of"inclusiveness".

IN ADMISSIONS!!!
THAT is where the fraudulent A/A can be flaunted in glossy brochures to the unsuspecting.

FACT: About 9years ago the UW-Madison took a BLOODY PR whipping when they published 65,000 Admissions brochure featuring the photo-shopped "head" of a former Black student who had flunked-out and had been digitally inserted into a largerphotograph of hundreds of all white students at one of the never-ending homages to jock-straps on campus...a football game.

The scam was exposed ONLYwhen the student,who was now homeless and pan-handling for pocket change in front of the CapitolBuilding came forward wearing rags and said he had NEVER attended ANY game and that his image was used without his knowledge or permission.

The public wanted the administration's heads for perpetrating this fraud with tax-payer money and for causing the school this embarrassing scandal.

All culprits got promotions,kept their jobs&are awaiting their HUGEgolden retirement parachutes to land in their reserved parking spots and taking long lunches to keep up with their botox and tanning-bed appointments.

...saw it with my OWN eyes...Madison,WI

[BlairCase]

12:50 PM on 04/30/2012

Basing college admissions on family income would increase white and Asian enrollment at the expense of Hispanic and black enrollment. The problem is that lower-income white and Asian students academically out-perform upper-income Hispanic and black students. The performance gap decreases as income increases, but it exists at all income levels. This is why a system like the Texas 10% rule is better than racial preferences or income-based admission systems. The 10-percent rule guaranttes acceptance to any students who graduates within the top 10% of their high school graduating class. It puts students from poor schools on an equal footing wiith students from affluent schools without resorting to racial preferences. It's a good interim system until we can figure a way to improve black and Hispanic academic performance.

[eric14]

06:15 PM on 04/30/2012

Does data of performance in college show a higher drop-out rate for blacks and Hispanics awarded places on 10% rule? Are they provided with any supplementary help during summer before college to help prepare them for the transition? Especially in study skills.

[BlairCase]

10:07 AM on 05/01/2012

The 10-percenters are holding their own. Drop-out rates are higher among blacks and Hispanics, but this is partially due to economics (they run out of money) and was true before the 10% rule went into effect. The slots left vacant by drop-outs are filled with very bright student transfers. These are kids with high SAT scores and grade point averages who didn't make it into the University of Texas as freshman because they finished in the top 11% of their class instead of the top 10% at highly competitive colleges. A significant precentage of freshmen are enrolled in remedial classes at campuses around the nation. Even Harvard has remedial English courses. Under the 10% rule, Hispanic enrollment increased significantly while back enrollment dropped slightly. The state expected a small increase in black enrollment, but it didn't happen. Asians make up 3% of the Texas population but 18% of freshmen at the University of Texas. It's impossible to achieve racial balance in college admissions without enacting quotas against Asians similar to those that once reduce Jewish admissions. In other words, only a blatantly racist admission policy can acheive "racial justice" in college admissions.

[MsGray]

08:49 PM on 04/30/2012

And just because you're black or Hispanic, you should get the spot of an Asian or white kid who outperforms you even if you had all the economic and educational advantages? That makes no sense. Should diversity just be color based? What about diversity of experience? Should Obama's kids - who attend one the best schools in the country - benefit from affirmative action? Come on now, think about it.

My husband is a graduate of U.T. law school, and we are Longhorn fans, but U.T. are wrong, and I hope they lose.

[lefty5214]

12:16 PM on 04/30/2012

I see your point, however, how do you seperate race from economic status? I think, at least in America, the two are almost inseperable. Also, when you extend affirmative action to the workplace, how do you unsee race during a job interview? Can you always see ecomonic status? I agree that this is a big issue and I'm not sure I even have the correct answer. But I definitely think it's something that the US needs to address, expecially with the huge gap in wealth that exists.

This article reminds me of something my roommate once said. "It's funny how colleges appreciate community service from priviledged kids who go into lower income neighborhoods and help out the kids there, but no one ever recognizes the 8th grade oldest sibling who can't particpate in after-school extracurriculars because both parents have to work and someone needs to watch the younger kids."

[BlairCase]

12:40 PM on 04/30/2012

You could separate race from economic status by requiring applicants to verify their family income. As things stand now, most benefits of racial preferences in college admissions go to minority students from affluent families, not to minority students from poor families. For example, in El Paso, a large city that is about 80% Hispanic, most of the affirmative action benefits once went to Hispanic students enrolled in schools such as Franklin High School on the city's affluent West Side. They didn't go to Hispanic students from high schools like Bowie High School in poverty-sticken South El Paso. Texas's 10-percent rule, which guarantees admission to any students who graduates in the top 10% of his or her high school graduating class, has changed that. Now a student at Bowie High School is on an equal footing with a Franklin High School student.

[Tina Beveridge]

01:58 PM on 04/30/2012

You separate race from economic status by deleting it from the admission application. They know your financial status from your FAFSA (and you could also add in questions about whether your parents own their home, the education level of your parents, etc that are statistical risk factors that have nothing to do with race).

[DocJoseph]

10:05 AM on 04/30/2012

I was just thinking about this last night. The problem that Affirmative Action was meant to address originally was racial discrimination, not economic disparity, but ultimately race matters only in that its consideration was meant to correct the lack of opportunity for blacks (and other minorities).

I think many saw Affirmative Action as a way of giving minority students an advantage to counter advantages of wealth. This approach suggests that there are no wealthy minorities. The issues are therefore like apples and oranges.

It does seem ironic that the goal of a "colorblind" society where there is equality of opportunity regardless of race should be the goal of a policy that addresses race rather than the lack of opportunity.

[BlairCase]

11:29 PM on 04/30/2012

Affirmative action would be nearly as controversial if it were limited to African Americans or minorities who are realMost affirmative action benefits to minority students from affluent families, not minority students from poor families. In states like Texas and New Mexico, most affirmative action benefits and scholarships go to Hispanic students who are the majority in Texas high schools. They go to students who have always been the majority in their age cohorts. An El Paso teacher recently made headlines by comparing two of her students, a Hispanic and an Anglo girl. Although the two girls had virtually identical grades and SAT scores, the Hispanic girl, whose father was an attorney and whose mother was a school teacher, got a scholarship to a Ivy League university. The Anglo girl, whose mother was a waitress struggling to make ends meet as a single parent, had to pay her own way to El Paso Community College. The assumption was that the Hispanic girl had to overcome hardship and prejudice, but in reality she had attended one of the high schools on El Paso's affluent West Side. Since Hispanics make up about 80% of El Paso's population, all the schools are a predominantly Hispanic. The Hispanic girl had never been in a situation where her ethnic group was not the majority.

[DocJoseph]

09:24 AM on 05/01/2012

Fanned.

I'm from South Texas originally, a region that is majority Hispanic. There is an Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic scholarships, and even the "neutral" scholarships are given partially on an ethnic basis.

Your observation that "The assumption was that the Hispanic girl had to overcome hardship and prejudice" remains the case. As long as that is correct, then Affirmative Action leans in the correct direction, but that shouldn't be the issue. Which one ACTUALLY had to overcome hardship and prejudice?

We seem to have forgotten that "majority" and "minority" are not only National statistics, but regional and local realities that may not be the same as the national ones.